Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Karthickeyan on 3 December, 2021
CMA.No.1064 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CMA No.1064 of 2020 and
CMP.No.6721 of 2020
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited,
Divisional Office,
Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri-5. ... Appellant
Vs
Karthickeyan ... Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated
28.08.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.100 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1064 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The Transport Corporation is on appeal terming the award of
Rs.7,48,611/- granted in favour of the claimant as excessive.
2.The claimant suffered injuries which resulted in amputation of
his left leg below the knee. The accident occurred when the petitioner was
waiting in the Baiyaranatham bus stop to board a bus to Harur, the
respondent Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN29-N-1748 going
from B.Thurinjipatti to Harur stopped at the bus stop. While the petitioner
was attempting to board the bus to the front entrance, the driver of the bus
moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the petitioner
falling of the bus and the rear wheel of the bus ran over his left leg,
resulting in grievous injuries. The left leg was completely crushed. The
petitioner was taken to the Primary Health Centre at Baiyarnatham from
where, he was shifted to Kurinji Hospital, Salem as inpatient and his left leg
below the knee was removed. Contending that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligence of the driver of the bus, the claimant would seek
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
3.The said claim was resisted by the respondent Corporation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1064 of 2020
contending that the accident was not due to negligence of the driver. The
claimant attempted to board a moving bus and fell down. The Tribunal
taking into account the fact that the FIR was filed against the bus driver and
he also convicted by the criminal Court concluded that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the bus. The
Tribunal took into account the fact that the injured claimant was working as
a Forest Guard, awarded the following amount as compensation:
S.No. Heads Amount
Rs.
1 Loss of earning capacity 2,40,000
2 Pain and sufferings 30,000
3 Extra nutrition and Transportation 25,000
4 Attender charges 25,000
5 Medical Expenses 2,78,611
6 Future Medical Expenses 1,50,000
Total 7,48,611
4.I heard Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel appearing for the
Transport Corporation.
5.Mr.Venkatachalam would contend that the Tribunal was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1064 of 2020
right in awarding a sum of Rs.2,78,611/- towards medical expenses. The
learned counsel would point out that there was a duplication of the bills and
the advance bill as well as the final summary were marked and the Tribunal
took into account both and awarded a sum of Rs.2,78,611/-. According to
Venkatachalam, this resulted in excess award of Rs.1,23,271/-. In other
words, the learned counsel would claim that there has been a duplication of
the medical bills to the extent of Rs.1,23,271/-.
6.The perusal of the documents, viz., Exhibits P5 and P7 would
show that the contention of the learned counsel is justified. There has been a
duplication in the bills, which has resulted in award of higher amount as
compensation under the said head.
7.However, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.30,000/-
towards pain and sufferings. It is admitted that the claimant was hospitalized
as inpatient nearly for two months and his leg was amputated.
8.Considering the same, the award of Rs.30,000/- for pain and
suffering is very low. The Tribunal has also not awarded any amount for loss
of income during the treatment period and immediately thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1064 of 2020
9.This is the case of amputation and therefore, some amount
should have been awarded towards loss of amenities also. If taking into
account the absence of award under the heads of loss of income and loss of
amenities and the very partly sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded towards pain and
sufferings, I do not think that the overall award could be termed as very
well. The said sum of Rs.1,23,271/- can be offset towards the awards under
the other heads. Hence, I do not see any merit in the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal and the same is therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
03.12.2021
vs
Index: No
Speaking order
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Principal Sub Judge,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1064 of 2020
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
vs
CMA No.1064 of 2020 and
CMP.No.6721 of 2020
03.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
