Madras High Court
Govindarajulu vs Regional Manager on 22 March, 2022
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
Govindarajulu ...Appellant / Claimant (in CMA No.341 of 2018)
Sujatha ...Appellant / Claimant (in CMA No.342 of 2018)
v.
Regional Manager ...Respondent / Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 to set aside the judgment and decree of the Tribunal in MCOP
Nos.85 & 86 of 2014 dated 30.10.2015 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal / Additional District Cum Sessions Court, Hosur,
Krishnagiri District.
For Appellant : Mr.P.A.Sudesh Kumar
(in both appeals)
For respondent : Mr.G.V.Shobana, (in both appeals)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
The claimants in MCOP No.85 of 2014 and MCOP No.86 of 2014
who had suffered an order of dismissal in the aforesaid Motor Accident
Original Petitions by a judgment dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District and Sessions Court, Hosur,
Krishnagiri District are the appellants herein.
2.CMA No.341 of 2018 had been preferred against the dismissal
of MCOP No.85 of 2014, which MCOP had been filed by the
K.Govindarajulu S/o.Kannaia who was said to be residing at Nayanoor
Village, Chittoor District and at the time of filing the petitioner claimed that
he was residing at Mookandapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
3.CMA No.342 of 2018 had been preferred against the dismissal
of MCOP No.86 of 2014, which MCOP had been filed by the wife of
Govindarajulu by name Sujatha who also affirmed that she was residing in
the same addresses as Govindarajulu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
4.The necessity for filing two separate claim petitions arose owing
to the fact that on 20.03.2009 at around 8.00 a.m., Govindarajulu was riding
a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-25-F-5634 towards Kangundi and
his wife Sujatha was the pillion rider. They were going to Padipathakam
where Sujatha was working as a Cooli from their native village, Nayanur.
They were proceeding from Nayanur in Kuppam – Nayanur Road. A
APSRTC bus bearing Registration No.AP-11-Z-2628 said to have been
driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle and
caused an accident. Both Govindarajulu and Sujatha fell down and sustained
injuries.
5.Govindarajulu had sustained the following injuries,
(i)Tenderness Right U/s of shaft of femur with deformity.
Unable to move right lower limb.
(ii)A CLW 7 x 3 cms right fore arm and over right elbow
joint 8 x 4 cms.
(iii)Multiple abrasions over frehead, Right side upper eye
lid (Right) and Right cheek.
(iv)X-ray shows: Fracture Right intertrochanteric femur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
6. His wife Sujatha had suffered the following injuries,
(i)Laceration 1 x 2 cms over lateral side of right eyebrow.
(ii)Laceration over cheek in front of right ear 1 x 1 cm.
(iii)Haematoma kwith CLW 2 x 2 cms over left parietal region.
(iv)Swelling of right cheek and swelling of right eye.
(v)CT Brain shows (1) # Right Maxilla (Coominuted).
(2)#Lateral Wall of Orbit.
(3)#Right Zygomatic arch.
(vi)CT Mandible show: # Mandible.
7.Govindarajulu was admitted as an inpatient and took treatment
on 20.032009 and was discharged on 11.04.2009. He was again admitted on
22.05.2009 and once again admitted on 27.12.2010 and discharged on
07.01.2011. He was again admitted on 10.01.2011 for suture removal. He
claimed compensation for the injuries suffered and sought a total amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
8.His wife Sujatha was admitted on 20.03.2009 and was again
admitted on 21.03.2009 and discharged on 31.03.2009. She was again
admitted on 08.05.2009 and also on 13.09.2010, 15.09.2010 and 22.09.2010
for removal of multiplates and screws. She was also admitted on 23.09.2010
and 29.09.2010. She claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the
injuries suffered.
9.Govindarajulu filed MCOP No.85 of 2014 and his wife Sujatha
filed MCOP No.86 of 2014. The respondent / Regional Manager, Andhra
Pradesh State Transport Corporation Ltd., had filed counters and they
questioned negligence alleged as against the driver of the bus. They also
stated that since two vehicles had been involved in the accident,
contribution of both the vehicles should be anaylsed and determined. They
also challenged the fact that Govindarajulu had a valid driving license. They
also questioned the treatments alleged to have been given to both the
claimants. In paragraph 23, they stated that the claimants are natives of
Nayanur Village, Andhra Pradesh and that the accident took place at Andhra
Pradesh and that therefore that Court has jurisdiction. It can be reasonably
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
presumed that by such vague pleadings, the jurisdiction of the Court to
examine the issues raised was questioned. They also disputed the address
given by the claimants at Mookandapalli Village, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu.
10.Both the claim petitions were taken up for consideration by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional District and Sessions
Court, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. On the basis of the averments made in
the claim petition and in the counter, three issues were framed for
consideration. The first issue was with respect to the jurisdiction of the
Court, the second issue was with respect to determination of negligence and
the third issue was with respect to determination of compensation payable.
11.It would have been advantageous to the litigants, had the
Tribunal taken up the first issue for consideration in the first instance. On
the other hand, the Tribunal commenced to examine the issue of negligence
as the first point for consideration and after examining the records had
attributed negligence only on the driver of the Andhra Pradesh State
Transport Corporation Ltd.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
12.In this connection, the Tribunal had the benefit of examining
the First Information Report, which had been marked as Ex.P1 and also the
copy of the final report filed by the police officials as Ex.P2. The nature of
the accident and the nature of the injuries were also examined and finally,
the Tribunal came to the conclusion it was purely due to the negligence of
the driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation Ltd., that the
accident took place. I would affirm the said finding.
13.Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the
compensation to be granted. It must be kept in mind that the Tribunal even
at that stage did not examine its jurisdiction to determine the issues at all.
14.With respect to the compensation, the Tribunal in MCOP
No.85 of 2014 filed by the Govindarajulu had determined the disability at
48 % and determined that a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability
can be granted and therefore granted a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- towards
permanent disability and thereafter had also granted a sum of Rs.30,000/-
towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
incurred for transportation and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attender
charges and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and a sum of
Rs.4,720/- towards medical bills. A total compensation of Rs.2,03,720/- was
granted for the injuries suffered by Govindarajulu.
15.With respect to the compensation, to be granted in MCOP
No.86 of 2014 filed by the Sujatha, the Tribunal had determined the
disability at 43 % and determined that a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of
disability can be granted and therefore granted a sum of Rs.1,29,000/-
towards permanent disability and thereafter also granted a sum of
Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards
expenses incurred for transportation and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards
attender charges and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and a
sum of Rs.400/- towards medical bills. A total compensation of
Rs.1,84,400/- was granted for the injuries suffered by Sujatha.
16.After proceeding to such an extent, namely determining
negligence and determining the compensation payable, the Tribunal then
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
took up the issue of jurisdiction and observed that the accident took place in
Andhra Pradesh and that the claimants have not produced any documentary
evidence to show their actual residence in Hosur and therefore, proceeded to
dismiss the claim petitions. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been
filed by both the claimants questioning that particular decision taken of the
Tribunal.
17.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.P.A.Sudesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and Ms.G.V.Shobana, learned
counsel for the respondent in both the appeals.
18.It had been pointed out by Mr.P.A.Sudesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the appellants that the claim petitions had been filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the learned counsel stated
that under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the enquiry should
be conducted in a summary manner and under Section 169 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal is vested with the powers of a Civil Court,
which naturally indicates it has power to summon the witnesses and also to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
record evidence. The power to summon witnesses is granted, to also enable
witnesses who might reside outside the jurisdiction to also come forward to
tender evidence.
19.Further under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
the place to file a compensation petition has been given, namely, the place
where the accident took place or where the claimants normally resides or
where the respondent resides or carries on business. Therefore, the place of
filing the petition has been widened and not restricted to one particular
place.
20.The claimants had given a particular address at Mookandapalli
Village. If the Tribunal had, entertained doubts about that particular address,
then since under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal
is vested with the powers of the Civil Court during trial proceedings, then it
automatically follows that the Tribunal is also vested with the power under
the Evidence Act, 1872, to seeking explanations with respect to any aspect
stated either by the claimants or by the respondents. The Tribunal had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
power to put questions under Sections 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872,
regarding any fact stated and seek clarifications. It is also for that particular
reason, to deter any frivolous statement being made that the Tribunal is
vested with the powers of the Civil Court under Section 169 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to enquire deeply into the every statement made either
by the claimant or by the respondent.
21.In the instant case, even if it is to be taken that the claimants
are actual residents of Andhra Pradesh, then that particular issue should
have been taken up in the first instance and if answered so, then instead of
dismissing the claim petitions, the claim petitions should have been returned
back to the claimants and the same may be presented before the Tribunal
which has competent territorial jurisdiction. Dismissing of the petitions,
after examining the issue of negligence and after determining the
compensation to be granted, is perverse attitude by the Tribunal. It has to be
interfered with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
22.After applying its mind to the facts of the case, the Tribunal
has also now placed an embargo on the competent Tribunal, even if this
Court were to direct the claimants to present the application before the
competent Tribunal in Andhra Pradesh, from determining the issues afresh
since the findings would still play on the minds of the Tribunal were the
trial might once again take place or if arguments were to be advanced on the
basis of the evidence already recorded. The quantum of compensation
determined will play on the minds of the Tribunal, since they are both
Courts of equal jurisdiction.
23.Therefore, I would interfere with the orders now under appeal
and set aside that particular finding on the issue of territorial jurisdiction
and hold that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, in view of the fact that the
claimants had given a specific address at Hosur which has not been
challenged during cross-examination and would confirm the compensation
granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
24.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. No order as to
costs. The compensation granted is confirmed. The negligence is
confirmed. The respondent should deposit the compensation amount within
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim
petition. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw same.
25.With respect to the interest, Ms.G.V.Shobana, learned counsel
pointed out that the appeals have been filed with a delay of 114 days.
Naturally, interest cannot be mulcted on the respondent for that particular
period of delay in filing the appeals. Therefore, while calculating interest,
which is to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petitions, the
interest for 114 days may be deducted and for the balance number of days or
years, the interest may be granted to the appellants herein. Interest is to be
granted at 7.5% simple interest.
22.03.2022
smv
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
SMV
To:-
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District & Sessions Court,
Hosur, Krishnagiri.
CMA.Nos.341 & 342 of 2018
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
