Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Sunitha on 20 January, 2021
CMA. Nos.1019 to 1022 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA. Nos.1019 to 1022 of 2009
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Kumbakonam. ... Appellant
..vs..
1. Sunitha,
D/o. Vishnu Rajaram Pawar . Respondent in CMA.No. 1019
of 2019
2. Ujjwala,
W/o. Appasa Pawar . Respondent in CMA.No. 1020
of 2019
3. Manisha S. Pawar,
D/o. Sathiyawan Pawar . Respondent in CMA.No. 1021
of 2019
4. Sonali Vishnu Pawar,
D/o. Vishnu Rajaram Pawar .. Respondent in CMA.No. 1022
of 2019
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA. Nos.1019 to 1022 of 2009
Common Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common judgment and decree dated
04.01.2008 in M.C.O.P.Nos.838 of 2004, 839 of 2004, 158 of 2005
and 159 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims
Tribunal and Principal Sub Judge, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr. D.Venkatachalam
(in all CMAs)
For Respondent : No Appearance (for All CMAs)
----
COMMON JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
Since common question of law is involved in all these appeals
and the appeals filed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal were disposed of by common judgment, they are also
disposed of by a common judgment.
2. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the
Transport Corporation against the common judgment and decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA. Nos.1019 to 1022 of 2009
dated 04.01.2008 in M.C.O.P.Nos. 838 of 2004, 839 of 2004, 158 of
2005 and 159 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident
Claims Tribunal and Principal Sub Judge, Salem.
3.The appellant is the 2nd respondent before the tribunal. The
respondents have filed separate claim petitions for compensation for
the injuries sustained by them in the road accident that took place
on 25.12.2000.
4. According to the respondents/claimants, on 25.12.2000 at
about 10.15 hours the TATA Sumo vehicle bearing Reg.No. MH
120AN 1992 in which the appellants travelled was parked left side of
the road behind the stationed Mahendra Van bearing Reg.No. TN
27-C-8793 for attending Nature Calls. At that time the driver of
the appellant transport corporation bus bearing Reg.No.TN45-N-
1047 which came from the same direction, dashed against back side
of the TATA Sumo Vehicle. Due to which, the claimants/respondents
herein and other passengers were sustained severe injuries. The
respondents herein have filed separate claim petitions, claiming a
sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/- and
Rs.4,00,000/- respectively from the Transport Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA. Nos.1019 to 1022 of 2009
5.The appellant-Transport Corporation, filed counter
statement before the tribunal and denied the mode of accident. The
Transport Corporation also does not admit the age, avocation,
income of the deceased.
6.Before the Tribunal, the respondents/claimants examined
themselves as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked documents ExP1 to P6.
The appellant examined its official as R.W.1 and no documents were
marked.
7.The Tribunal after considering the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence, fixed liability on the part of driver of the
transport corporation bus and awarded compensation of sum of
Rs.1,02,500/-, Rs. 52,500/-, Rs.51,500/- and Rs. 52,500/-
respectively to the claimants under various heads together with
interest at 7.5% per annum payable by the Transport Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA. Nos.1019 to 1022 of 2009
8.Challenging the liability fastened on them by the common
award 04.01.2008 in M.C.O.P. Nos. 838 of 2004, 839 of 2004, 158
of 2005 and 159 of 2005 the appellant – Transport Corporation has
come out with these appeals.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
alleged accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligence
on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo Vehicle in which the
claimants have traveled. It is further contended by the learned
counsel that the tribunal erred in awarding compensation towards
medical expenses in the absence of sufficient documents. The sum
awarded under other heads to all the claimants are excessive and
the same is liable to be set aside.
10.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
Transport Corporation. No appearance for the claimants. Perused
the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA. Nos.1019 to 1022 of 2009
11. From a perusal of the award, it is clear that the tribunal by
considering Ex.P2/Wound Certificate issued by the Mohan
Kumaramangalam Government Medical College Hospital, Salem,
granted compensation separately to the grevious injuries and simple
injuries sustained by the claimant. Further the tribunal by
considering the age, nature of injuries sustained and the treatment
taken, has awarded compensation under other heads viz., loss of
income, Extra nourishment, and transport expenses to the
claimants. In view of the injuries, the compensation awarded under
the above heads are reasonable and does not require any
modification. It is true that the claimants have not produced any
medical bills for their claim under medical expenses, but the tribunal
by taking note of the treatment taken by the claimants for the
injuries, has granted some considerable amount to the claimants
under the head 'Medial Expenses'. Since the injuries and treatment
taken the claimants are proved, the sum awarded by the tribunal
under the head 'Medical Expenses' does not require any
modification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA. Nos.1019 to 1022 of 2009
12. Further, the appellant before the tribunal, in their counter
statement admitted the fact that the driver of the respondent bus,
on seeing the lorry and Maruthi Car coming in the opposite direction
rashly, fearing the collision stopped the vehicle by applying sudden
break. When the bus was about to stop, it touched slightly the TATA
SUMO Van, which was parked on the road side.
13. In view of the above, it is clear that the driver of the
respondent bus alone is responsible for the said accident, who
dashed against the parked vehilce. Therefore, considering the facts
and circumstances of the case and considering the oral and
documentary evidence, this Court has come to the conclusion that
the tribunal has rightly fixed the negligence on the part of the
appellant corporation driver and directed to pay the compensation
by the Transport Corporation. The compensation awarded by the
tribunal to the claimants is also found reasonable and does not
require any interference by this Court.
14. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
dismissed. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA. Nos.1019 to 1022 of 2009
The Appellant /transport Corporation shall deposit the compensation
amount along with interest, as awarded by the tribunal, less the
amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such
deposit being made, the respondents/claimants are permitted to
withdraw the same by filing appropriate applications before the
tribunal. No costs.
20.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet : yes
ak
To
1. The Principal Sub Judge,
(Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal)
Salem.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA. Nos.1019 to 1022 of 2009
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
ak
CMA. Nos.1019 to 1022 of 2009
20.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
