Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Ayyanar on 27 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.1725 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A.No.1725 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.9111 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Kumbakonam ... Appellant
Vs.
Ayyanar ...
Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
29.09.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2019 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tindivanam.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award
dated 29.09.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2019 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tindivanam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1725 of 2021
2. The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2019 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tindivanam. The respondent filed the above said claim petition claiming a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in
the accident that took place on 25.10.2015.
3. According to respondent, on 25.10.2015 at about 1:45 a.m. while he
was travelling in his two wheeler bearing Reg.No. TN 32 M.1820 towards
Pommiyarpalayam and when nearing E.C.R. Road Sarakupalayam, on the
lefthand side a bus came in the opposite direction bearing Reg.No.TN 68
0335. The driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the respondent. Hence he sustained injuries on his head and all
over the body. Immediately he was admitted in JIMPER Hospital,
Pondicherry and thereafter for further treatment he was shifted to Indira
Gandhi Hospital, Pondicherry. Therefore, the respondent filed the said claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries
sustained by him against the appellant-Transport Corporation.
4. The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the respondent. According to the appellant,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1725 of 2021
at the time of accident, while the driver of the bus was driving the bus slowly
from Koyambedu Bus turminus to Mayiladuthurai near Kodangkuppam
Sarakkupalam near Mother Santhi Marriage Hall at about 1:45 a.m., in the
opposite direction, a Motor cycle bearing Reg.No. TN 32 M 1820 came and it
was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the driver was not wearing
helmet. Without following traffic rules and without proceeding on the left
side of the road he crossed the centre median and dashed against the Bus
which was coming in the opposite direction. Hence the respondent is alone
responsible for the accident. The driver of the bus also gave a complaint
against the driver of the two wheeler and FIR has been registered. Owner and
the Insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay compensation to the respondent and
stated that the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondent is highly
excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1, and
6 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the appellant, one
Kownchiraman, Driver of the bus belonging to appellant was examined as
R.W.1 and no document was marked. Court side Exhibit C.W.1 was marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1725 of 2021
6. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation
and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,68,609/- as compensation to
the respondent.
7. To set aside the award dated 29.09.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.943
of 2019, the appellant-Transport Corporation has come up with the present
appeal.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of P.W.1, whose evidence
has not been corroborated by any other independent witness. The Tribunal
failed to consider the evidence let in by the appellant and erroneously fixed
negligence on the driver of the bus. The appellant examined the driver of the
bus as R.W.1 and proved that driver of the bus was not responsible for the
accident and that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the
part of the respondent. The respondent failed to prove his avocation and
income. In the absence of any material evidence with regard to avocation and
income, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,500/- is excessive.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1725 of 2021
The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings and
attender charges are highly excessive and prayed for setting aside the award
passed by the Tribunal.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation and perused the entire materials on record.
10. From the materials on record it is seen that the respondent was aged
about 32 years and working as a Mazon. On 25.10.2015 he was riding a
motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 32 M 1820 and it met with an accident due to
which he was thrown from the vehicle and he fainted and suffered multiple
injuries all over the body. Taking the situation in his favour, the driver of the
bus – Transport Corporation gave an incorrect FIR as if the rider of the two
wheeler was responsible for the accident. Based on the complaint given by the
driver FIR has been registered against the rider of the two wheeler and
according to FIR two wheeler was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The
Tribunal taking note of the evidence of the driver of the Transport Corporation
held that except the driver no one was examined and that there was no sketch
showing the place and the manner in which the accident has taken place.
There is no reason as to why no other passenger travelling in the bus was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1725 of 2021
examined or produced as a witness to substantiate the case of the Transport
Corporation that the accident took place due to the fault of the rider of the two
wheeler and not because of the driver of the bus-Transport Corporation.
Though the complaint has been given with a few hours delay, the Tribunal
assessed the evidence and came to the conclusion that if the driver of the bus
had driven the bus properly the accident would have been averted and the
relevant portion is extracted below.
“ tpgj;J ele;j neuj;jpy; tpgj;J ele;j ,lj;jpy; Tl;l behphrnyh
nghf;Ftuj;J behprnyh ,y;yhj ,ut[ neuk; vd;w epiyapy; bghpa thfdkhd muR
ngUe;J Xl;Leh; jhd; ngUe;ij ghh;j;J ftdkhft[k; $hf;fpuijahft[k; bkJthft[k;
miufpnyh kPl;lh; bjhiytpy; kDjhuh; jhWkhwhf ,U rf;fu thfdj;ij Xl;o
te;jij ghh;j;jjhf rhl;rpaj;jpy; vjph;kDjhuh; rhl;rp v/rh/1 bjhptpj;jpUf;Fk; nghJ
bghpa thfdkhd muR ngUe;jpid mjd; Xl;Leh; epWj;j Kaw;rp bra;ahky;
,Ue;Js;shh; vd;gJ v/rh/1 rhl;rpaj;jpypUe;nj bjhpa tUfpwJ/ mnj nghy; 10 mo
bjhiytpnyna ngUe;J epWj;j Koa[k; vd rhl;rpakspj;Js;s epiyapy; ngUe;J
Xl;Leh; bkJthf ngUe;J Xl;oapUe;jhy; tpgj;ij jtph;j;jpf;fyhk;./ Mdhy;
mnjrkak; kDjhuhpd; ,U rf;fu thfdj;jpd; kPJ g[fhh; bfhLf;fg;gl;L Kjy;
jfty; mwpf;if gjp[t[ bra;ag;gl;ljhnyna muR ngUe;J Xl;Leh; tpgj;Jf;F fhuzk;
my;y vd;W brhy;y KoahJ Vbddpy; tpgj;J Vw;gl;lt[ld; kDjhuh;
kaf;fkile;jhh; vd;gij v/rh/1 rhl;rpaj;jpy; xg;g[f;bfhz;Ls;shh;/”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1725 of 2021
There is a categorical finding that the driver of the bus was responsible
for the rash and negligent driving and causing accident and fastened the
liability on the Transport Corporation. I find no other view is possible in the
present case on hand. The Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the
Transport Corporation. I find no merits and the accident occurred only due to
the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-
Transport Corporation. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal
warranting interference by this Court.
12. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of
the respondent that in the accident he sustained fracture in his right hand, jaw
and multiple injuries all over the body. To prove the nature of injuries and
disability the respondent has marked Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 to that effect. It is the
further case of the respondent that at the time of accident he was aged 32
years, working as a Mazon and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month.
Except oral evidence, the respondent has not filed any document to prove his
avocation and income. The Tribunal considering the year of accident and rise
in cost of living, fixed a sum of Rs.5,500/- per month as notional income of
the respondent. The disability certificate of the respondent issued by the
Medical Board was marked as C.W.1 which shows that the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1725 of 2021
suffered 12% disability. The respondent has not proved that he suffered
functional disability. Hence, he is not entitled to compensation by applying
multiplier method. The Tribunal has granted compensation by awarding a
sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage which is not meager. The respondent was
aged 32 years at the time of accident. Considering the nature of injuries,
period of treatment taken and the disability suffered by the respondent as per
Exs.P2, P3 & P4 the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards medical bills,
attender charges, pain and sufferings, extra nourishment and transportation
are not excessive. The Tribunal considering the entire materials on record, has
awarded a sum of Rs.1,68,609/- as compensation to the respondent, which is
not excessive warranting interference by this Court.
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a
sum of Rs.1,68,609/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
respondent, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant-
Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount along with
interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit
of M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tindivanam. On such deposit, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1725 of 2021
respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest
and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing
necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
27.08.2021
dpq
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tindivanam,
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1725 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
dpq
C.M.A.No.1725 of 2021
27.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
