Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Veerasekar on 22 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.398 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.398 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2619 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Kumbakonam Municipalities and Taluk,
Kumbakonam. .. Appellant
Vs.
Veerasekar .. Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
09.03.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.56 of 2017 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Thiruvarur.
For Appellant : Ms.P.Rajathi
for Mr.D.Raghu
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award
dated 09.03.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.56 of 2017 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Thiruvarur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.398 of 2021
2.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.56 of 2017 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Thiruvarur. 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 21.03.2005.
3.According to respondent, on 21.03.2005 at about 01.30 P.M., while
he was riding his unladden Plate Rickshaw on the Thiruvarur –
Mayiladuthurai Panagal road carefully, the driver of the bus bearing
Registration No.TN 49 N 0801 belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation,
drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner from South to North direction
on the same road without following the Traffic Rules and Regulations and
dashed against the Plate Rickshaw rode by the respondent and caused the
accident. In the accident, the Plate Rickshaw belonging to respondent was
crushed and 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.398 of 2021
4.The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the respondent. According to the appellant,
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 and when he was driving
the bus on the Panagal road, the respondent who was riding his Plate
Rickshaw by not following the road traffic rules and not riding the Plate
Rickshaw on the left side of the road, suddenly turned to right side without
showing any signal or indication and not noticing the bus, which was coming
behind the Plate Rickshaw. On seeing the same, inspite of best efforts taken
by the driver of the bus to avoid the accident, due to the negligence on the
part of the respondent the accident has occurred. Therefore, only the
respondent is responsible for the accident. The appellant-Transport
Corporation denied the age, avocation, income, nature of injuries, disability,
medical bills and period of treatment taken by the respondent. 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, one
Nehru was examined as P.W.2 and Dr.S.Thiruselvi was examined as P.W.3
and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the appellant,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.398 of 2021
Mayilaiyan, 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
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.6,34,948/- as compensation to
the respondent.
7.To set aside the award dated 09.03.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.56 of
2017, the appellant-Transport Corporation has come out with the present
appeal.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
respondent only suddenly crossed the road by riding the Plate Rickshaw from
left to right side without any hand indication and without seeing the bus
coming behind him. The Tribunal erroneously fixed entire negligence on the
part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant and liability on the
appellant. The Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of P.W.1,
whose evidence has not been corroborated by any other independent witness.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.398 of 2021
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 driver
of the bus was acquitted in Crime No.106 of 2005 and the Tribunal ought to
have fixed negligence on the part of the respondent. The Tribunal ought not
to have adopted multiplier method for awarding compensation towards loss
of earning capacity and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
attendant charges is excessive. In any event, the total compensation awarded
by the Tribunal at Rs.6,34,948/- is 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.It is the case of the respondent that while he was riding his unladden
Plate Rickshaw on the Thiruvarur – Mayiladuthurai Panagal road carefully,
the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation, drove the
bus in a rash and negligent manner from South to North direction on the same
road without following the Traffic Rules and Regulations and dashed against
the Plate Rickshaw rode by the respondent and caused the accident. To prove
the said contention, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1, one Nehru as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.398 of 2021
P.W.2 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 at the time of accident, the respondent only suddenly crossed
the road by riding the Plate Rickshaw from left to right side without any hand
indication and without seeing the bus coming behind him and thus, the
accident occurred. To prove the said contention, the driver of the bus was
examined as R.W.1. Further R.W.1, in his cross examination has deposed that
he was acquitted in Criminal Case.
11.It is well settled that contents of F.I.R. and criminal proceedings are
not sole criteria for fixing negligence. The Tribunal has to independently
consider the materials placed before it to fix the negligence. In the present
case, 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
F.I.R., which was registered against the driver of the bus. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.398 of 2021
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 he was aged 42 years, doing Goods Delivery work by his
Plate Rickshaw and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month at the time
of accident. But he failed to prove the said contention. It is the contention of
the respondent that in the accident he sustained multiple grievous injuries in
his legs and to prove the same, he examined Dr.Thiruselvi as P.W.3.
P.W.3/Doctor examined the respondent and deposed that respondent could
not able to continue his Goods Delivery work by his Plate Rickshaw and
certified that the respondent suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. The
Tribunal considering the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in
2019 (1) TNMAC 33 (DB), [S.Neethipathi Vs. Managing Director, TNSTC
Villupuram], and the evidence of P.W.3/Doctor, adopted multiplier method
to award compensation for loss of earning capacity and the same is proper.
The Tribunal considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2014 (1) TNMAC 459 (SC), [Syed Sadiq, etc., Vs. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited] and the Division Bench
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.398 of 2021
judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (1) TNMAC 54 (DB), [Andal and
two others Vs. Abhinav Kannan and New India Assurance Company
Limited, Chennai], fixed a sum of Rs.5,600/- 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 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC
Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &
another], applied multiplier '14', which is proper. Considering the nature of
injuries, disability and avocation of the respondent, the sum of Rs.5,64,480/-
awarded by the Tribunal as compensation towards loss of earning capacity is
just and reasonable and the same is confirmed. The respondent has taken
treatment in the Thanjavur Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur
as inpatient from 21.03.2005 to 05.05.2005. Considering the period of
treatment taken by the respondent, the amount awarded by the Tribunal
towards attendant charges is not excessive. The Tribunal considering the
entire materials on record, has awarded a sum of Rs.6,34,948/- 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.6,34,948/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.398 of 2021
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.56 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Sub Court, Thiruvarur. On such deposit, the 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. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.
22.02.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Thiruvarur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.398 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.398 of 2021
22.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
