Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs P.Ayyakannu on 22 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.409 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.409 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2641 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Villupuram. .. Appellant
Vs.
P.Ayyakannu .. Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
12.04.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.5037 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award
dated 12.04.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.5037 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.409 of 2021
2.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.5037 of 2013 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court,
Chennai. The respondent filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum
of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident that took place on 15.10.2011.
3.According to respondent, on 15.10.2011 at about 11.40 hours, while
he was walking along the Kaliyamman Kovil Road from West to East
direction to Bus Stand entrance gate, the driver of the bus bearing
Registration No.TN 32 N 3299 belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation,
drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner from North to South direction
without following the Traffic Rules and Regulations and dashed against the
respondent and caused the accident. In the accident, the respondent sustained
multiple severe injuries all over the body. Therefore, the respondent filed the
said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- 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.409 of 2021
at the time of accident, while the driver of the bus was driving the bus slowly
and cautiously by observing all the rules of the road, near the entrance of
Koyambedu Bus Stand, the pedestrian who crossed the road, dashed against
the bus and invited the accident. The accident has occurred only due to
negligence on the part of respondent. If really the accident had happened due
to the negligence of the driver of the bus, the passengers and general public
near the place of occurrence would not have allowed the bus to move from
that place. As per the statement made by the Sub Inspector of Police, K10
Police Station, Koyambedu, the bus belonging to appellant was sent for
Motor Vehicle Inspection. The respondent has lodged a false complaint
against the appellant only with an intention to get compensation from the
appellant. In any event, 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
14 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P14. On behalf of the appellant,
Singaram, Driver of the bus belonging to appellant was examined as R.W.1
and no document was marked.
6.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.409 of 2021
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.15,42,600/- as compensation to
the respondent.
7.To set aside the award dated 12.04.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.5037
of 2013, the appellant-Transport Corporation has come out 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
ought not to have held that mere registering of F.I.R. is more enough for
fixing negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The disability fixed by
the Tribunal for the respondent at 80% is highly excessive. The amounts
awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings and loss of amenities
are exorbitant. In any event, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal
at Rs.15,42,600/- is highly excessive and prayed for setting aside the award
passed by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.409 of 2021
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation and perused the entire materials on record.
10.It is the case of the respondent that at the time of accident, while he
was walking along the Kaliyamman Kovil Road from West to East direction
to Bus Stand entrance gate, the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-
Transport Corporation, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner from
North to South direction without following the Traffic Rules and Regulations
and dashed against the respondent and caused the accident. To prove the said
contention, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked F.I.R. as
Ex.P1, which was registered against the driver of the bus belonging to
appellant. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that while the
driver of the bus was driving the bus slowly and cautiously by observing all
the rules of the road near the entrance of Koyambedu Bus Stand, the
pedestrian who crossed the road, dashed against the bus and invited the
accident. To prove the said contention, the driver of the bus was examined as
R.W.1. R.W.1 is an interested witness and the appellant has not examined any
other eyewitness to prove their case that accident has occurred only due to
negligence on the part of the respondent and has not filed any objection to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.409 of 2021
F.I.R., which was registered against the driver of the bus belonging to
appellant-Transport Corporation. The Tribunal considering the evidence of
P.W.1, Ex.P1/F.I.R., R.W.1 and failure on the part of the appellant for not
filing any objection to the F.I.R., not lodging any complaint against the
respondent and not examining any other independent witness other than
R.W.1, held that accident has 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.
11.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the
respondent that in the accident he sustained left leg amputation, left leg crush
injuries, Grade III Compound fracture both bone left leg and other multiple
injuries all over the body. To prove the nature of injuries and disability, he
examined himself as P.W.1. The respondent has taken treatment as inpatient
for 46 days for 'Grade III Compound fracture both bone left leg' and
thereafter for about 6 days at Jipmer Hospital. The Tribunal considering
Exs.P2, P3, P13 & P14, age and nature of work done by the respondent, fixed
the loss of earning capacity of the respondent as 80% following the Sl.No.17,
Part – II in Schedule – I of the Employees Compensation Act and the same is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.409 of 2021
proper.
12.It is the contention of the respondent that he was aged 55 years,
working as Mason and was earning a sum of Rs.500/- per day. But he failed
to prove the said contention. In the absence of any material evidence with
regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal considering the year of
accident, age and nature of work done by the respondent, fixed a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income of the respondent and the same is
not excessive. The Tribunal considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2005 (I) TNMAC 87 (DB), [United India Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Veluchamy and another], adopted multiplier method
for awarding compensation towards loss of earning capacity and the same is
proper. The Tribunal following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another] and 2017 (2) TNMAC 609
(SC), [National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others]
rightly applied multiplier '11' and granted 10% enhancement towards future
prospects of the respondent. Considering the nature of injuries, disability and
avocation of the respondent, the sum of Rs.11,61,600/- awarded by the
Tribunal as compensation towards loss of earning capacity is just and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.409 of 2021
reasonable. As far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings
and loss of amenities is excessive is concerned, the amount awarded by the
Tribunal towards transportation and extra nourishment is meagre and the
Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future medical expenses and
damages to clothes. In view of the same, the amounts awarded by the
Tribunal towards pain and sufferings and loss of amenities are not interfered
with. The Tribunal considering the entire materials on record, has awarded a
sum of Rs.15,42,600/- 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.15,42,600/- 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.5037 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai. On such deposit, the respondent is
permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.409 of 2021
adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary
applications before the Tribunal. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed. No costs.
22.02.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The IV Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.409 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.409 of 2021
22.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
