Madras High Court
S.Ramachandran vs The Managing Director on 27 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.No.1703 of 2018
S.Ramachandran ... Appellant
Vs.
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corp. Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai - 2. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2017 made
in M.C.O.P.No.3516 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (VI Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sivakumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
JUDGMENT
The claimant is before this Court seeking an enhancement of the
award passed in M.C.O.P.No.3516 of 2011 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The facts in brief are as follows:
The claimant had filed the above M.C.O.P seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident on
22.04.2011. It is his case, on the said date at about 21.10 hours, he was
traveling in the bus belonging to the respondent / Transport Corporation
bearing registration No.TN-01-N-8268 on Rajaji Salai and proceeding in the
South to North direction. When the bus reached the RBI Subway, on
account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent bus,
the bus hit the wall and then the center median, as a result of which the
appellant had sustained grievous injuries.
3. The respondent / Transport Corporation had filed a counter,
denying the accident and the fact that the driver had driven the bus in a rash
and negligent manner. It was their case that on the said date viz.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22.04.2011, the respondent's bus bearing route No.119 was proceeding from
Kovalam to Toll Gate. When the bus was proceeding on Kamarajar Salai
and when the bus neared the RBI Subway, on account of the sudden
downpour on 22.04.2011, water had filled the Subway, making it
inconvenient for light vehicles to pass the subway. At that time, an Auto had
suddenly stopped in the subway on account of water logging and to avoid
hitting the Auto, the driver of the respondent bus applied sudden brake and
turned right. Since the road was wet with water and mixed with engine oil,
the respondent bus skid and hit the median in the process. The said accident
was nothing but an act of god.
4. The respondent / Transport Corporation has also contended that the
quantum of compensation was on the higher side. The Tribunal below after
considering the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the
accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of
the respondent bus and taking into account the disability assessed as per the
disability certificate, exhibited as Ex.P4, awarded the compensation of
Rs.30,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Aggrieved by the very low compensation, the Appellant / claimant
has filed the above Appeal.
6. The main contention put forward by the Appellant / claimant is that
although P.W.2 (Doctor) had assessed and issued a disability certificate
(Ex.P4), assessing the disability at 35%, the Tribunal refused to take into
consideration the same, as the Appellant has not sustained any permanent
disability. Therefore, no amounts came to be awarded under the head of
disability and ultimately, a lumpsum of Rs.30,000/- has been ordered.
7. The learned counsel for the Appellant / claimant would submit that
the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of P.W.2, who was a practicing
Doctor and who in his certificate has assessed the disability at 35%. He
would, therefore, submit that the amounts have to be granted under this
head. The said argument was rejected to by the counsel appearing for the
respondent / Transport Corporation stating that the disability certificate has
been issued without following the guidelines and procedures and has,
therefore, been rejected by the Tribunal. That apart, the counsel would argue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the Appellant / claimant has not sustained any disability by reason of
which he has suffered a functional disability. The injuries are also do not
qualified as causing as permanent disability.
8. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
9. The Tribunal while rejecting the disability certificate has given its
reasoning which has not been seriously challenged by the Appellant. P.W.2
(Doctor) in very clear words stated except for taking X-rays, he has not
perused the earlier medical records to arrive at his conclusion. The Tribunal
has also taken note of the fact that P.W.2 has not given the initial treatment
to the Appellant / claimant. The injuries sustained as per Ex.P3 is only a
lacerated wound on dorsum left foot. It is also seen that the Appellant /
claimant who has admitted into the Government General Hospital has left
the hospital stating that he is not willing to take the treatment.This only goes
to show that the injuries sustained by him are not of a grievous nature and
therefore, no credence can be given to Ex.P4, disability certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. In the result, I see no reason to set aside the order passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (VI Small Causes Court), Chennai.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
27.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ab
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(VI Small Causes Court), Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.T. ASHA, J,
ab
C.M.A.No.1703 of 2018
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
