Madras High Court
Minor Pooja vs The Managing Director on 14 June, 2022
C.M.A. No.58 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.M.A.No.58 of 2021
Minor Pooja .. Appellant
(rep. By natural guardian and
next friend, her father Ganesan)
Vs.
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation,
Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002. .. Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2018, made
in M.C.O.P. No.3333 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Special Court,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan
_____
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.58 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.]
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated
17.12.2018, made in M.C.O.P. No.3333 of 2016, on the file of the Principal
Special Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
2.The minor appellant-claimant, represented by her father Ganesan,
filed M.C.O.P. No.3333 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Special Court,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai, claiming a sum of
Rs.60,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the
accident that took place on 18.08.2015.
3.According to the minor appellant, on 18.08.2015, at about 8.30 p.m,
while she was riding in a Honda Activa bearing Registration No.TN-59-S-
1906 in front of Veterinary Medical College Hospital, Veppery Main Road,
Chennai, from West to East, the Bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-8487,
owned by the respondent-Transport Corporation, coming from East to West in
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.58 of 2021
a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the Honda Activa which the appellant
was riding and caused the accident. In the accident, the appellant sustained
grievous injuries and lost her right vision and filed claim petition claiming a
sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her.
4.The respondent-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and
denied the entire averments in the claim petition and submitted that on the
date of accident viz., 18.08.2015, at about 8.30 p.m, the driver of the Bus
stopped the vehicle at Veterinary Hospital Bus Stop for the passengers to
alight and board the Bus. When the driver of the Bus started the Bus, the
appellant, who was a minor, without holding driving license, drove the Honda
Activa in a rash and negligent manner and lost control and dashed in front of
the Bus. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the minor
appellant. The father of the appellant lodged the complaint based on hear say
evidence and hence, the respondent denied paying compensation to the
appellant.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.58 of 2021
5.Before the Tribunal, the father of the minor appellant was examined
as P.W.1 and marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. On the side of the
respondent-Transport Corporation, the driver of the Bus was examined as
R.W.1, but did not mark any document.
6.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that both the driver of the Bus as well as the minor appellant
contributed to the accident and fixed 75% negligence on the part of the driver
of the Bus and 25% negligence on the minor appellant. The Tribunal granted
a sum of Rs.18,66,000/- as compensation to the appellant and directed the
respondent-Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.13,99,500/- being 75%
of the compensation to the appellant.
7.Questioning the 25% negligence fixed on the minor appellant and not
being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has
come out with the present appeal.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.58 of 2021
8.The learned counsel appearing for the minor appellant contended that
the Tribunal erred in fixing 25% negligence on the part of the appellant. The
accident has occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the Bus
owned by the respondent-Transport Corporation. FIR was registered only
against the driver of the respondent. The Tribunal erred in fixing 25%
negligence on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the
entire negligence on the part of the respondent. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant further submitted that the appellant was a minor
College Student. The Tribunal erred in fixing only a sum of Rs.25,000/- as
notional income of the appellant. The Tribunal ought to have fixed more
amount as notional income, taking into consideration the educational
qualification of the appellant. The Tribunal failed to grant compensation
towards future medical expenses, loss of marital prospects and loss of
amenities and prayed for setting aside 25% of the negligence fixed on the
appellant and for enhancement of the compensation.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.58 of 2021
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
respondent-Transport Corporation and perused the entire materials available
on record.
10.From the materials available on record, it is seen that admittedly, on
the date of accident, the appellant was minor, studying 11th Standard in a
School. She did not possess driving license. The appellant drove the Honda
Activa on the date of accident in contravention of provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act. It is to be noted that the appellant has not examined any eye-
witness, except her father, to substantiate the contention that accident has
occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Bus owned by the
respondent-Transport Corporation. It is the contention of the respondent that
driver of the Bus stopped the Bus at Veterinary Hospital Bus Stop for the
passengers to alight and board the Bus. At that time, the appellant lost the
control and dashed in front of the Bus and sustained injuries. To substantiate
their case, the respondent examined driver of the Bus as R.W.1. The Tribunal,
taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1, held that the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.58 of 2021
driver of the Bus ought to have been more careful in driving the vehicle
whenever the minor child is driving the vehicle and fixed 75% negligence on
the part of the driver of the Bus and 25% on the part of the appellant. We find
no error in the said reasoning of the Tribunal for fixing negligence on both,
warranting interference by this Court.
11.As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of
the appellant that at the time of accident, she was a 11th Standard student
studying in English Medium School and in the accident, she lost her right
vision and sustained multiple fractures. From the materials on record, it is
seen that it is the admitted case that appellant was an unemployed person,
particularly, a student studying in School. The Tribunal, without any
materials, erroneously held that appellant is a Medical College Student and
fixed notional income of the appellant as Rs.25,000/- per month. Further, the
appellant suffered 30% loss of vision in her right eye. The Tribunal had
applied the multiplier method, but failed to convert the disability for a part of
the body into whole body. The Tribunal has granted excessive amount for loss
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.58 of 2021
of earning capacity. In view of the same, the appellant is not entitled for
enhancement of compensation separately towards disability. The appellant
has not made out any case for enhancement.
12.In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the amount awarded by the
Tribunal at Rs.13,99,500/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is confirmed. The
respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount
determined by the Tribunal, along with interest and costs, within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit
of M.C.O.P. No.3333 of 2016. On such deposit, the award amount is directed
to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, till the minor appellant
attains majority. Ganesan, father of the minor appellant is permitted to
withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for the welfare of the
minor appellant. No costs.
(V.M.V., J) (S.S., J)
14.06.2022
gsa
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.58 of 2021
To
1.The Principal Special Judge,
Special Court under E.C. & NDPS Act,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.58 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
and
S.SOUNTHAR,J.
(gsa)
C.M.A.No.58 of 2021
14.06.2022
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
