Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Pavithra on 16 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.370 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A. No.370 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem)Limited,
12, Ramakrishna Road Salem,
Regional Office, Bharathipuram,
Dharmapuri 5. .. Appellant
Vs.
Pavithra .. Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2014, made
in M.C.O.P. No.2466 of 2013, on the file of the Special Sub Court, (Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr. D.Venkatachalam
For Respondent : Mr.SP.Yuaraj
_____
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.370 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
Transport Corporation against the quantum of compensation granted by the
Tribunal in the award dated 28.03.2014, made in M.C.O.P. No.2466 of 2013,
on the file of the Special Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Krishnagiri.
2.By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well
as the respondent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission
stage itself.
3.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P. No.2466 of 2013, on the
file of the Special Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri.
The respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the
accident that took place on 09.06.2012.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.370 of 2021
4.According to the respondent, on the date of accident, she was
traveling in a TVS XL bearing Registration No.TN-70-B-7575 driven by one
Maruthi from Veppanapalli towards Narasingapuram along with her daughter
Divya, husband Rajkumar. When they were proceeding at the
Thimmasandiram Diversion Road in Veppanapalli to Theertham Main Road,
they stopped the TVS XL on the left side of the road for a natural call of the
child. At that time, the driver of a Bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-
1858 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, without sounding
horn and dashed on the TVS XL and caused the accident. The accident
occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Bus. In the
accident, the respondent sustained grievous injuries and hence, filed claim
petition claiming compensation against the appellant as owner of the Bus
involved in the accident.
5.The appellant-Transport Corporation, filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the respondent in the claim petition.
According to the appellant, the driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant-
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.370 of 2021
Transport Corporation drove the same slowly, cautiously, sounding horn,
keeping to the left side of the road from Alaykunthani towards Krishnagiri. At
about 18.30 hours, while the said Bus was nearing Veppanapalli Murugan
Kovil, the rider of the TVS XL rode the same in a rash and negligent manner,
lost control and hit against the front right side of the Bus and invited the
accident. Due to the said impact, the respondent who was a pillion rider in the
TVS XL sustained simple injuries. The accident occurred only due to
negligent act of rider of the TVS XL and there was no fault on the side of the
driver of the Bus. The claim petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and
insurer of the TVS XL. The FIR was registered against the driver of the Bus
on the influence of the respondent. The respondent has to prove her age,
avocation and income, treatment taken and injuries sustained to claim
compensation. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the
respondent is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6.Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined herself as P.W.1,
Dr.Devendrian was examined as P.W.2 and 8 documents were marked as
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.370 of 2021
Exs.P1 to P8. The appellant examined the driver of the Bus involved in the
accident as R.W.1, but did not mark any document.
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by driver of the Bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation
and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.7,57,500/- as compensation to
the respondent.
8.Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in
the award dated 28.03.2014, made in M.C.O.P. No.2466 of 2013, the
appellant – Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation contended that the respondent failed to prove her age, avocation
and income by oral and documentary evidence. The Tribunal ought not to
have taken the percentage of disability assessed by P.W.2 Doctor, as the same
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.370 of 2021
is on higher side. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the respondent
suffered functional disability, the Tribunal erred in adopting multiplier
method to award compensation for loss of earning capacity. The sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income is excessive,
when the respondent failed to prove her avocation and income. The amounts
awarded by the Tribunal under the heads, partial loss of income, pain and
sufferings and future medical expenses are excessive and prayed for reducing
the compensation granted by the Tribunal.
10.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the Tribunal considering the materials on record, awarded
compensation under different heads, which are not meagre and prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
11.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation as well as the respondent and perused the materials available on
record.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.370 of 2021
12.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the contention of
the respondent that in the accident, she suffered severe head injury and
multiple fractures all over the body. P.W.2 Doctor examined the appellant and
certified that the appellant suffered 60% disability. The Tribunal considering
the evidence of P.W.2 Doctor and the disability certificate marked as Ex.P8,
reduced the percentage of disability assessed by P.W.2 Doctor to 50%. The
Tribunal considering the fracture on the right hand and leg of the respondent,
which results in permanent disability and loss of her earning capacity in
future, adopted multiplier method. The same is in order. The Tribunal
considering Exs.P2 and P3, fixed the age of the respondent as 24 years,
applied the multiplier '18' and awarded compensation towards loss of earning
capacity. Considering the nature of injuries and treatment taken by the
respondent for the same, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal for pain and
suffering, transport and nutrition, attendant charges, medical bills and future
medical expenses are not excessive. It is the case of the respondent that she
was working as a Coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. She
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.370 of 2021
failed to prove the same. In the absence of any materials, the Tribunal
considering the nature of work done by the respondent, fixed the sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month as notional income. The accident is of the year 2012.
Considering the year of accident and cost of living prevailed, the notional
income fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. Due to the injuries sustained in
the accident, the respondent would not have worked atleast for a period of
five months. Hence, the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
towards partial loss of income is just and reasonable. There is no error in the
award of the Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court.
13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.7,57,500/- together with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is
confirmed. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the
award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount 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.2466 of 2013. On such deposit,
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.370 of 2021
the respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount with interest and
costs, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing
necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs.
16.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
gsa
To
1.The Special Subordinate Judge,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.370 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
C.M.A. No.370 of 2021
16.02.2021
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
