Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs R.Manikandan on 8 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
C.M.A. No.3237 of 2012
AND M.P.No. 1 of 2012
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Limited,
Ramakrishna Road,
Salem -7. .. Appellant
Vs.
R.Manikandan
S/o.Rajangam ..Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree
dated 27.03.2012, made in M.C.O.P. No.255 of 2011, on the file of
the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore
___
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2012
For Appellant : M/s.D.Venkatachalam
For Respondent: No Appearance
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree
dated 27.03.2012, made in M.C.O.P. No.255 of 2011, on the file
of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore
2.The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P. No.255 of
2011, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore The
respondent herein has filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum
of Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by
him in the road accident that took place on 04.01.2011.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2012
3. Breif facts leading to the case is that on 04.01.2011 when
the claimant was proceedings in his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.
TN 31 AX 7122 at about 7.30 AM near Western side of railway
junction, Vridhachalam, the respondent corporation bus bearing
Reg.No. TN 30 N 0951 came from the opposite direction at a very
high speed in a rash and negligent mannter, without making horn,
without following the traffic rules and regulations hit against the
claimant's motor cycle and caused the accident. The accident
happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of
respondent's vehicle. Due to the said accident, the claimant
sustained grevious injuries and multiple fracture on his body.
Hence, for the loss and injuries sustained by him due to the said
accident, he claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation
under various heads before the tribunal.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2012
4.The appellant-Transport Corporation, filed counter
statement before the tribunal and denied the mode of accident and
negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation
Bus. The claimant's age, occupation, monthly income, nature of
injuries and the treatment taken by the claimants were denied by
the Transport Corporation. The amount of compensation claimed
by the claimant was also denied as excessive and speculative.
5.Before the Tribunal, the respondent/claimant examined
himself as P.W.1 and the doctor was examined as PW2 and marked
documents ExP1 to P5. The appellant/Transport Corporation
examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and no documents were
marked.
6.The Tribunal after considering the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence has concluded that the accident had
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2012
occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the
Transport Corporation bus bearing Reg.No.TN.30 N 0951 and
awarded compensation of Rs.1,71,780/- under various heads
together with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by the
Transport Corporation.
7.Challenging the liability fastened on them by the award
dated 27.03.2012, made in M.C.O.P. No.255 of 2011, the appellant
- Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport
Corporation submitted that that the tribunal ought not to have
considered the evidence of PW1 who's evidence not corroborated
by another other independent witnesses. The learned counsel
further submitted that the tribunal ought not to have held that
mere registering FIR against the driver of the bus is enough for
holding negligence on him. The Tribunal failed to consider the
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2012
evidence of RW1/driver of the bus, who deposed that the accident
was occurred due to sudden turning of motor cyclist bearing
Reg.No.31-AX-7122 without observing the traffic rules.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that the percentage of permanent disability fixed by the
tribunal at 11% is on the higher side. Likewise the notional income
fixed by the tribunal at Rs.4500/- per month and the
compensation awarded under various head is also excessive and
without any proof. Hence the award passed by the tribunal is liable
to be set aside.
10. The arguments raised by the claimant/respondent herein
before the tribunal is that the father of the claimant had lodged a
complaint before the jurisdictional police station and FIR was also
registered against the driver of the bus in Crime No.07/2011 under
Section 279 and 337 of IPC. Ex.P2/MVI Report also shows that the
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2012
accident was not caused due to any mechanical defect of the
vehicle. Therefore the accident had occurred only to due to
negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation
Bus.
11.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
Transport Corporation. No Appearance on behalf of the respodent
/claimant and perused the materials available on record.
12. On a perusal of records, it is seen that though
RW1/driver of the bus has denied the negligence on his part,
during cross examination he had categorically admitted that due to
his negligence the said accident had occurred and a criminal case
was also registered against him. The relevant portion is extracted
below;
“tpgj;J rkaj;jpy; tpgj;J Vw;gLj;jpa muR
ngUe;ij ehd;jhd; Xl;o brd;nwd;/ tpgj;J
rk;ge;jkhf tpUj;jhryk; fhty;epiyaj;jpy;
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2012
vd;kPJ tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ vd;id
ifJ bra;J gpizapy; tpl;lhh;fs;/ tpgj;J
rk;ke;jkhf fhty;epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh;
bfhLf;ftpy;iy/ tpgj;J tpUj;jhryk; L nryk;
bkapd; nuhl;oy; ele;jJ/ tpgj;J vd;Dila
ftd Fiwthy; Vw;gl;lJ vd;W Kjy; jfty;
mwpf;if gjpt bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; rh[p. ,J
rk;ge;jkhf Fw;wtpay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; vd;kPJ
tH;fF eilbgw;W tUfpwJ/ tpgj;J bjhlh;ghf
Jiw hPjpahf K:d;W khjkhf Cjpa cah;t[
epWj;jpa[s;shh;fs;/“
13. As per the cross examination of RW1, it is clear that
against RW1, FIR was lodged. Furthermore, if there is no mistake
on the part of the respondent's driver, he could have preferred a
complaint before the jurisdictional police station, but he did not to
do so. Therefore the arguments raised by the learned counsel
denying the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus cannot
be accepted.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2012
14. With regard to the contentions raised by the learned
counsel appearing the appellant in respect of fixing percentage of
disability and the quantum of compensation granted by the
tribunal, it is seen that PW2/Doctor has stated that the claimant
has developed the disability i.e fracture of left knee and surgery
was conducted, plate and screws were fixed to the claimant and
opined that the disability is permanent and it is 40%. The tribunal
took the disability at 33% and as per ruling of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, had calculated the disability to the whole body
which comes 1/3 and accordingly fixed the disability as 11% and
calculated the compensation. The said disability fixed by the
tribunal is reasonable and does not require any modification.
15. The tribunal by considering the age of the deceased 28
years as per Ex.P3/Discharge summary, fixed a sum of Rs,4500/-
as notional income and by applying proper multiplier 17, calculated
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2012
the loss of income at Rs.1,00,980/-, which is proper and
reasonable. Further, as per Ex. P4-Medical Bills to the tune of
Rs.38,308/- the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.38,300/- by
taking into consideration the treatment taken by the claimant for
the injuries sustained by him. The Transport Corporation did not
raise any objections for the said amount, therefore, this Court find
no reason to interfere with the said amount. Accordingly, the sum
awarded under the heads Pain and Sufferring, Extra Nourishment,
Transportation are also reasonable and does not require any
modification by this Court.
16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,71,000/-
together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is confirmed.
The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the
entire award amount along with interest and costs, less the
amount already deposited, within a period of twelve weeks from
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2012
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of
M.C.O.P. No.255 of 2011. On such deposit, the
respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount,
after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing
necessary applications before the Tribunal. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
08.01.2021
Index : Yes
ak
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Cuddalore
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3237 of 2012
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
ak
C.M.A. No.3237 of 2012
AND
M.P.No. 1 of 2012
08.01.2021
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
