Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Myilsamy on 23 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.2526 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C.M.A.No.2526 of 2013
and M.P. No.1 of 2013
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Division I),
Kaspa Town,
37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore – 43. ..Appellant
Vs.
1.Myilsamy
S/o.Thiruman
2.Manickam
S/o.Loganayagam
3.Govindasamy
S/o.Thirumalaisamy
4.The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
No.47, Kumaran Shopping Complex,
Kumaran Road,
Tiruppur Kaspa Town,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
(R-2 not necessary party hence given up) ..Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
05.10.2012 in M.C.O.P.No.574 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, FTC No.III, Dharapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2526 of 2013
For Appellant :: Mr.A.Sundara Vadhanan
For R1 :: Mr.MA.P.Thangavel
For R4 :: Mr.R.Needhiperumal
JUDGMENT
(heard through video-conferencing)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment
and Decree dated 05.10.2012 in M.C.O.P.No.574 of 2010 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, FTC No.III,
Dharapuram.
2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.574 of 2010 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court,
FTC No.III, Dharapuram. The 1st respondent herein had filed the said claim
petition, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries
sustained by him in a motor accident that took place on 01.05.2010.
3.According to the 1st respondent, on 01.05.2010, at about 5.30 A.M.,
while the 1st respondent/Myilsamy was travelling in the Eicher Van bearing
Registration No.TN-38-S-8085, proceeding from South to North on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2526 of 2013
Dharapuram to Udumalai Main Road, near Thalavaipattinam Maithankarai,
at that time, a TNSTC Bus bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-1092, driven
by the 2nd respondent from North to South in a rash and negligent manner
and without following the rules and regulations, came to his right side and
hit against the Eicher Van. Due to said impact, the 1st respondent sustained
injuries on his right side of clavicle region, right hand, mandible, right
elbow, right side of the head and multiple injuries over his body.
4.Resisting the claim petition, the Transport Corporation has filed a
counter wherein it is stated that the manner of accident narrated in the claim
petition was misleading and incorrect. It is further stated that the accident
had taken place only due to hectic speed and rash and negligent act of the
driver of the Eicher van and not due to rash and rash and negligent driving
by the driver of the bus. The FIR was registered against the driver of the
Eicher van which was insured with 4th respondent/Insurance Company,
based on the complaint given by one of the passengers travelled in the
goods van. The vehicle, namely, Eicher goods van, involved in the accident
was carrying more than 40 passengers violating the provisions of Motor
Vehicles Act and against the permit condition since goods vehicle was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2526 of 2013
suppose to carry the passengers. It is also stated that the claim amount is
very excessive and that the injured had not sustained grievous injuries and
permanent disability in the accident.
5.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, injured/claimant examined
himself as P.W.8 and one Mr.K.Periyasamy, Doctor, was examined as
P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P36 were marked. On the side of the
appellant/Transport Corporation, neither oral nor documentary evidence has
been adduced.
6.The Tribunal, on a consideration of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the Transport Corporation bus and
directed the appellant/Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- as
compensation to the 1st respondent.
7.Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
vide award dated 05.10.2012 in M.C.O.P.No.574 of 2010 granting
compensation to the 1st respondent, the appellant-Transport Corporation has
come forward with the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2526 of 2013
8.Mr.A.Sundara Vadhanan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Transport Corporation submitted that it is a batch of claim petition
in which this particular claim petition only is agitated and appeal is filed
regarding quantum considering the age of the victim who had suffered
fracture on his shoulder and who was aged 58 years and was working as an
agriculturist and also working as a loadman. As per his own statement, the
monthly income is stated as Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal had
fixed a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards loss of income due to partial permanent
disability at 18% @ Rs.2,000/- per percentage, loss of income at Rs.4,000/-
per month was granted for six months totalling Rs.24,000/-. A sum of
Rs.5,000/- towards Transporation, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings
and Rs.50,00/- towards extra nourishment. The total compensation arrived
at Rs.90,000/-/.
9.Per Contra, Mr.MA.P.Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the
1st respondent/claimant submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is
reasonable one and does not warrant any interference by this Court. The
appeal has no merits and is to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2526 of 2013
10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent/claimant and perused the materials available on record.
11.Whether the appeal filed by the appellant/Transport Corporation
seeking to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal is to be allowed or the
award is to be set aside?
Point for Consideration:
12. Perused the records in M.C.O.P.No.574 of 2010. On a perusal of
the award passed by the Tribunal, it is found that a reasonable award was
passed considering the age of the victim/claimant as 58 years and whose
avocation is stated as agriculturist and also loadman. He having suffered
fracture on his shoulder bone and the same had been assessed by a Doctor as
20% disability, the Tribunal has taken it as 18% and awarded Rs.36,000/-
for disability and for loss of income at Rs.24,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,000/-
towards Transporation, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings and
Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment has also been awarded by the
Tribunal. Therefore, it is found that it is a reasonable award. The submission
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2526 of 2013
made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation that
the amount is excessive cannot at all be accepted by this Court and the same
is found unreasonable.
13.Points for consideration are answered against the
appellant/Transport Corporation. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is dismissed and a sum of Rs.90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as
compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant is confirmed. The appellant-
Transport Corporation is directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- as
compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant along with interest and costs,
less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st
respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount along with
interest and costs, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn, if any, by
making necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
gbi 23.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2526 of 2013
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
gbi
To
1.The Additional District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC No.III, Dharapuram.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
C.M.A.No.2526 of 2013
and
M.P. No.1 of 2013
23.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
