Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Mariammal @ Marimadelen on 23 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.459 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A. No.459 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Bharathipuram,
Dharmapuri. .. Appellant
Vs.
Mariammal @ Marimadelen .. Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2013, made
in M.C.O.P. No.604 of 2010, on the file of the Additional District Court,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Dharmapuri.
For Appellant : Mr. D.Venkatachalam
___
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.459 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
Transport Corporation challenging the quantum of compensation granted by
the Tribunal in the award dated 13.02.2013, made in M.C.O.P. No.604 of
2010, on the file of the Additional District Court, (Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal), Dharmapuri.
2.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P. No.604 of 2010, on the
file of the Additional District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Dharmapuri. The respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the
accident that took place on 21.02.2010.
3.According to the respondent, on the date of accident, when she was
traveling in the Bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1994 belonging to the
appellant-Transport Corporation along with her son, near Biligundu Kanavai,
the driver of the Bus who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.459 of 2021
his control, due to which the Bus toppled on one side. The respondent and
others fell down from the Bus and sustained injuries. 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.
4.The appellant-Transport Corporation, filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the respondent in the claim petition.
According to the appellant, on the date of accident, while the said Bus was
proceeding near Pilikundu Kanavai on Anchetty to Hogenakkai road with due
care, following the traffic rules with slow speed to climb the U bend which
come across, the respondent who was traveling in Bus suddenly got down
through front foot board from the moving Bus in an unexpected manner
without minding the warning given by the conductor not to get down and
invited the accident. The accident occurred only due to negligent act of the
respondent and there is no fault on the part of the driver of the Bus. Hence,
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.459 of 2021
the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the respondent. The
respondent has to prove her age, avocation and income, injuries sustained by
her in the accident and the medical expenses incurred for the same. In any
event, the total compensation claimed by the respondent is excessive and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined herself as P.W.1,
Dr.S.Krishnakumar was examined as P.W.2 and 6 documents were marked as
Exs.P1 to P6. The appellant examined the driver of the Bus involved in the
accident as R.W.1, but did not mark any document.
6.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.2,67,618/- as compensation to
the respondent.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.459 of 2021
7.Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in
the award dated 13.02.2013, made in M.C.O.P. No.604 of 2010, the appellant
– Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal.
8.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 as 40%, which is on the higher side.
The Tribunal erred in adopting multiplier method to award loss of earning
capacity to the respondent, when the respondent failed to prove that the
disability sustained affected her normal work and there is total functional
disability. For the injuries sustained in the accident, the Tribunal ought not to
have granted future prospects to the respondent. The total compensation
granted by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award.
9.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport
Corporation and perused the materials available on record.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.459 of 2021
10.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the contention of
the respondent that in the accident, she sustained injuries over the left leg,
fracture over the lower back, compression fracture on the L4 and L5 and
fracture on the pelvis and has taken treatment as in-patient at Government
Medical College Hospital and at St.John Medical Hospital, Bangalore from
23.02.2010 to 10.03.2010. She filed Ex.P2 – wound certificate and Ex.P3 –
discharge summary to prove the same. P.W.2 Doctor examined the respondent
and certified that the respondent suffered 60% disability. The Tribunal
considering the avocation of respondent as agricultural coolie and nature of
fracture, reduced the percentage of disability to 40%. It is the contention of
the respondent that at the time of accident, she was earning a sum of
Rs.6,000/- per month as Agricultural coolie. She failed to prove the same. The
accident is of the year 2010. The Tribunal considering the year of accident
and nature of work done, fixed a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as notional
income of the respondent and the same is meagre. In view of the same, 30%
enhancement granted towards future prospects is not interfered with.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.459 of 2021
Following judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC
1 SC Supreme Court [Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & another], the Tribunal applied multiplier '11' and awarded
compensation towards loss of income for 40% disability and the same is in
order. The Tribunal failed to award any amount for attendant charges. The
sum of Rs.41,698/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses,
Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- each towards extra
nourishment and transportation are not excessive. There is no error in the
award of the Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court.
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,67,618/- 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.604 of 2010. On such deposit,
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.459 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.
23.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
gsa
To
1.The Additional District Judge,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Dharmapuri.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.459 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
C.M.A. No.459 of 2021
23.02.2021
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
