Madras High Court
Sevithkumar vs The Managing Director on 11 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A. No.218 of 2022
Sevithkumar ... Appellant
Vs.
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation,
Pallavan House, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order made in M.C.O.P.No.156 of 2015
dated 21.01.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.Amar Dineshbhai Pandiya
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sivakumar
JUDGMENT
The Claimant has filed the above Appeal claiming an enhancement of
the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Court
of Small Causes, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.156 of 2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The Appellant / claimant herein was travelling in the bus
belonging to the respondent / Transport Corporation bearing Registration
No.TN-01-N-9830 from Tondiarpet to Koyambedu. When he was getting
down through the front entrance of the bus at the Vijayakanth Thirumana
Mandapam bus stop, the driver suddenly started the bus without waiting for
the Appellant / claimant to get down, as a result of which the Appellant /
claimant had fallen down and the left side rear tyre of the bus run over his
left leg and hip and causing grievous injuries to the Appellant / claimant.
Therefore, the Appellant / claimant had come forward with the above claim
petition.
3. The respondent had countered the claim by contending that the bus
was driven in a careful manner and it was the Appellant / claimant who had
suddenly tried to alight from the bus while it was in motion, as a result of
which he had lost his balance and sustained injuries. The driver and
conductor had admitted the Appellant / claimant in a hospital by calling the
108 Ambulance which is proudly a humanitarian gesture. The accident was
solely on the part of the Appellant / claimant and therefore they were not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
liable to compensate him.
4. The Tribunal has held the negligence to be only on the part of the
driver of the respondent / Transport Corporation bus. As regards quantum,
the Tribunal had taken into account the disability of 25% though, the
Appellant / claimant had produced Ex.P8, disability certificate issued by
P.W.2. The Tribunal has taken into account the fact that the Doctor who had
examined the Appellant / claimant and given him the disability certificate
Ex.P8, had examined him much later and further he has not provided the
work sheet, etc., to show as to how he had come to the conclusion that the
Appellant / claimant had sustained a disability of 40%. It is an admitted fact
that the Appellant / claimant had not appeared before the Medical Board.
Therefore, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 25%. To this a sum of
Rs.3,000/- per 1% disability has been taken into account and consequently a
sum of Rs.75,000/- has been fixed under the head of disability. Ultimately,
an award of Rs.2,33,000/- was passed by the Tribunal below.
5. Challenging the same, the Appellant / claimant is before this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Mr.Amar Dineshbhai Pandiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Appellant / claimant would contend that the Court below has totally
failed to appreciate the injuries that the Appellant / claimant had sustained
which are left leg both bone fracture with skin avulsion and hip fracture
which definitely has to be treated as permanent disability considering the
avocation of the Appellant / claimant viz., he is a load man. He would
submit that this factor has not been taken note of by the Tribunal below and
the Tribunal below ought to have taken note the entire disability and treated
it as a permanent disability and awarded the compensation on a multiplier
method.
7. Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent / Transport Corporation would submit that the compensation
granted by the Tribunal below is reasonable and requires no interference. He
would submit that the Appellant / claimant has not produced any evidence
to show that he is not able to continue his earlier occupation on account of
the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, the compensation
under the head of disability has to definitely be only on account of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
percentage method and not multiplier method.
8. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
9. The Appellant / claimant was examined by P.W.2, who had given
the disability certificate marked as Ex.P8. P.W.2 has deposed that the
Appellant / claimant has sustained 40% disability, which is partial and
permanent in nature. Further, the injury sustained would also to be an
impediment and would restrict the Appellant / claimant from functioning as
before. However, there is nothing to show that the Appellant / claimant has
stopped working as a load man and there is also no evidence that is let in by
the Appellant / claimant. However, taking into account the nature of injury
and the occupation of the Appellant / claimant, it would be reasonable to
take in the disability, as assessed by the Doctor, who has examined the
Appellant / Claimant as P.W.2.
10. Considering the year of the accident, Rs.4,000/- per 1% disability
can be fairly considered. Therefore, the amount under the head of disability
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would be enhanced to a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- which is calculated as follows:
Rate per % of Disability % of Disability Amount in Rs.
Rs.4,000 40% Rs.1,60,000
In all other respect the award is reasonable. Therefore, the Appeal is
partly allowed and the Award is enhanced by a sum of Rs.85,000/- together
with interest at 7.5%. Therefore, the modified compensation is as follows:
Heads Awarded Awarded by
by the this Court
Tribunal (Amount in
(Amount Rs.)
in Rs.)
Disability 75,000 1,60,000
Pain and suffering 75,000 75,000
Extra nourishment 20,000 20,000
Transport to Hospital 10,000 10,000
Damages to clothes 1,000 1,000
Attender charges 13,600 13,600
Medical expenses 1,272 1,272
Loss of Income 27,000 27,000
Loss of Amenities 10,000 10,000
Total 2,32,872 3,17,872
Rounded off to 2,33,000 3,18,000
11. The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award of the
Tribunal is modified, enhancing the compensation amount from
Rs.2,33,000/- to Rs.3,18,000/-. The respondent / Transport Corporation is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.156 of 2015
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim
petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less,
the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the
claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with accrued
interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any
already withdrawn. The claimant is directed to pay the necessary Court fee
for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal below
shall not disburse the enhanced amount till such time the certified copy
showing proof of payment of Court fee is produced by the claimants. In
other respects, the Award of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. There shall
be no order as to costs in the present appeal.
11.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ab
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.T. ASHA, J,
ab
C.M.A. No.218 of 2022
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
