The Branch Manager vs Muniraj
2021 Latest Caselaw 3224 Mad

                                                        1

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED :10.02.2021

                                                   CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

                                          C.M.A(MD)No.1361 of 2015
                                                    and
                                             MP(MD)No.3 of 2015

                      The Branch Manager,
                      Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
                      Dindigul.                         : Appellant/Respondent

                                                      Vs.

                      Muniraj                               : Respondent/Petitioner

                             PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
                      Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated
                      11.04.2011 made in MCOP No.21 of 2006 on the file of Motor
                      Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Palani.


                                  For Appellant         : Mr.M.Prakash

                                  For Respondent        : Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran



                                                  JUDGMENT

Challenge made in this appeal is to the award passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Palani, in MCOP No.

21 of 2006, dated 11.04.2011.

http://www.judis.nic.in

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.2001 at about

2.30 pm near Moolachatram on Dindigul-Palani Main Road, when

the injured Muniraj was travelling in the TNSTC Bus TN-57-N-0493

as passenger, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, it

hit behind one Thangaraj and due to sudden impact, the claimant

Muniraj hit on the steel rod inside the bus, resulting into his

sustaining grievous head injuries and he was taken to CF Hospital,

Oddanchatram and treated as inpatient from 21.11.2001 to

23.11.2001 and then, he was referred to Mahatma Rural Hospital,

Vadamadurai. The injured claimant filed a claim petition seeking

compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on the ground that the driver of the

Bus was responsible for the accident.

3.The claimant has stated that at the time of the accident, his

age was 27 and he was working as Software Engineer in Baan Info

Systems India Limited, Hyderabad and was earning Rs.15,800/-

per month. A criminal case in Crime No.837 of 2001 was

registered against the driver of the Bus by Oddanchatram Police.

4.The claim was opposed by the appellant Transport

Corporation disputing the manner of accident and their liability to

pay compensation.

http://www.judis.nic.in

5.The Tribunal, upon consideration of oral and documentary

evidence, came to the conclusion that the driver of the Bus was

responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.

20,58,384/- together with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. Aggrieved by the

award of the tribunal, the appellant Transport Corporation is

before this court.

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

7.It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that

the quantum of award is on the higher side, so the quantum is to be

reduced. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent/claimant submitted that the award is reasonable, which

does not warrant any interference of this court.

8.PW1 is the injured as well as the eye witness to the

accident. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the

Transport Corporation Bus. Ex.P1 FIR stands registered based on

the complaint given by PW1. Ex.P2 charge sheet would show that

after investigation, the police filed a final report against the Driver

http://www.judis.nic.in

of the Bus. Ex.P5 is the criminal court judgment. On perusal of

Ex.P5, criminal court judgment, the driver of the bus admitted his

guilt and paid fine. PW1 has given evidence stating that he

sustained head injuries and due to it, he lost his memory and he has

got stress and depression disorder and he was not able to do his

regular work. Ex.P3 is the Wound Certificate. Ex.P9 is the Disability

Certificate. Ex.P11 is the scan report.

9.PW2 Dr.Jeyabalachanran has deposed that he examined the

claimant and found that the claimant had sustained grievous

injuries, lost his memory and he got stress and depression disorder

and he assessed 62% permanent disability and issued Ex.P9

disability certificate to the claimant. Based on the evidence, the

Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant has suffered

62% permanent disability and awarded Rs.19,98,384/- (Rs.

15,800/- x 12 x 17 x 62%) under the head. The Tribunal awarded

Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- for

transportation and Rs.25,000/- for extra nourishment, totally Rs.

20,58,384/- together with interest @ 7.5.% p.a. In the considered

view of this court, the award is fair and reasonable and therefore, it

is confirmed.

http://www.judis.nic.in

10.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed,

confirming the award of the tribunal. No costs. Consequently,

connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

10.02.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

To

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Sub Court, Palani

2.The Record Keeper, V.R Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in

T.KRISHNAVALLI.J.,

er

C.M.A(MD)No.1361 of 2015

10.02.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in