Madras High Court
The General Manager vs T.Madhavan on 8 March, 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.243 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.A(MD)No.243 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.2069 of 2021
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Pudukottai District. ... Appellant/Respondent
vs.
T.Madhavan ...Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.327 of
2010 dated 28.04.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III
Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
Questioning the negligence and quantum, the transport corporation has
filed this appeal.
2.The brief facts of the case is that on 20.05.2009 about 02.45 p.m., the
respondent/claimant was travelling in a Maruti Car bearing Registration
http://www.judis.nic.in
No.TN-45-AY-1960 along with his relative Selvaraj who was driving the Maruti
C.M.A.(MD)No.243 of 2021
Car and when the car was proceeding on the left side of Kalayakkadu Cross road, a
bus bearing Registration No.TN-55-N-0374 belonging to the appellant transport
corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the
opposite direction and dashed against the Maruti car. As a result of which, the
respondent/claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body
including head injuries. For the injuries sustained in the accident, the
respondent/claimant claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The
appellant/Transport Corporation resisted the claim petition and denied the manner
of accident. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either
side, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the appellant corporation bus and fixed the liability on the
appellant to pay compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- to the respondent/claimant with
7.5% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the Transport Corporation
has filed this appeal questioning negligence and quantum.
3.The learned counsel for the appellant would state that the accident had
not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the appellant's
corporation bus, whereas it is only the driver of the Maruti Car had caused the
accident and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have absolved the appellant from its
liability to pay compensation. As far as quantum, the learned counsel would state
that the Tribunal has fixed the partial permanent disability suffered by the
respondent/claimant at 46% and awarded Rs.1,32,000/- on the basis of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
evidence of the Doctor who neither treated the respondent/claimant nor assessed
C.M.A.(MD)No.243 of 2021
the disability and therefore, the award under the head disability compensation is
liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded
exorbitant compensation under other heads and therefore, the award of the
Tribunal requires interference.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no appearance
for the respondent.
5.Perusal of record shows that the manner of accident has been amply
proved by the evidence of PW1/claimant and corroborated by Ex.P1-FIR that the
driver of the appellant's transport corporation bus was responsible for the accident,
whereas, no rebuttal evidence was let in on the side of the appellant to disprove the
case of the claimant. Thus, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the transport corporation bus and
accordingly fixed liability on the appellant to pay the compensation, where, I do
not find any infirmity.
6.As far as quantum, the claimant has stated that in the accident, he
suffered grievous injuries all over the body and there was fracture of left femur,
and right humerus and grievous injuries in head, chin, left temporal region, right
eyebrow, right ankle and right shoulder. He took treatment as inpatient at
Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai, from 20.05.2009 to 10.06.2009, during
http://www.judis.nic.in
which, a surgery has been done to fuse the fractured bones where, a rod has been
C.M.A.(MD)No.243 of 2021
fixed in the left femur and a plate has been inserted in the right humerus. PW2
Doctor who examined the claimant with reference to the medical records has
stated that due to the fracture of left femur and right humerus, there is a decrease in
the movement of hip and the right shoulder and due to which, the claimant would
find it difficult to squat and lift heavy objects. PW2 Doctor has assessed the
permanent disability sustained by the respondent/claimant at 46% and issued
Ex.P8-disability certificate. However, the Tribunal taking into account the nature
of injuries, had taken the percentage of permanent disability at 44% and by
awarding Rs.3,000/- for each percentage of disability, awarded disability
compensation at Rs.1,32,000/-. Though the appellant had contended that PW2
was not the Doctor who treated the appellant and therefore, his evidence ought not
to be relied on, it is well settled that opinion of the experts cannot be found fault
with unless contrary thereto is adduced. In the present case, no such evidence was
adduced and the Tribunal itself by erroneous approach, has slightly reduced the
percentage of disability assessed by PW2 Doctor from 46% to 44%.
7.Apart from the above, considering the nature of injuries and the period
of treatment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings;
Rs.10,000/- for nutrition; Rs.18,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.5,000/-
towards transportation. Though the respondent/claimant claimed compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, in the absence of medical bills, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses. Though the
http://www.judis.nic.in
respondent/claimant has produced Ex.P7-salary certificate to prove that prior to
C.M.A.(MD)No.243 of 2021
the accident, by working as Executive Secretary in Meenakshi Mission Hospital,
Madurai, he had earned Rs.11,300/- per month, in the absence of any evidence let
in to prove the genuineness of Ex.P7, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of
the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of income for three months due to the injuries. Altogether, the Tribunal has
awarded total compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum. In my
opinion, the quantum of compensation cannot be said to be excessive, whereas,
taking into consideration the nature of injuries, where the petitioner sustained
fracture of left femur and right humerus and multiple injuries all over the body, it
is very low and therefore, the interference of this Court is not necessary.
8.The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with
interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if
any, to the credit of the claim petition, within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is
permitted to withdraw the same without filing formal permission petition before
the Tribunal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD)No.243 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala/pkn
9.With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No 08.03.2021
Internet : Yes/No
bala/pkn
To
1)The Judge,
III-Additional Subordinate Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tiruchirappalli.
2)The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
ORDER MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.243 of 2021 and
C.M.P(MD)No.2069 of 2021
DATED : 08.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
