Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Perumal on 28 October, 2022
C.M.A.No.2330 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.2330 of 2022
and
CMP.No.18139 of 2022
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
(Villupuram-2), Thiruvannamalai.
.. Appellant / 3rd Respondent
-Vs.-
1.Perumal
2.T.Srinivasan
3.The Manager
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
CMTS Bhavan, 70 Feet Road, Elis Nagar
Madurai. .. Respondents 1 & 2 /
Respondents 2 &3
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 17.12.2021 made in
M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Judge (MACT), Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2330 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The Transport Corporation, who is the 3rd respondent before the
Tribunal, has filed the above appeal challenging the same on the ground of
quantum.
2. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the
Tribunal.
3. The petitioner filed M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2019 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Krishnagiri seeking
a compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him
in a road accident on 31.10.2018. The petitioner was travelling as a
passenger in the TNSTC bus bearing Registration No.TN 25 N 0455
belonging to the third respondent. While so, the lorry belonging to the first
respondent and insured with the second respondent was proceeding in front
of the third respondent's bus and the lorry was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner. The driver of the lorry had suddenly applied its brake, as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2330 of 2022
result of which, the bus which is proceeding behind dashed against the rear of
the lorry. Therefore, the accident had taken place only on account of the rash
and negligent driving of the lorry and the petitioner and other passengers
sustained fracture and other injuries.
3. The third respondent before the Tribunal had filed a counter
stating that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the third
respondent's bus and the accident had taken place only on account of the rash
and negligent driving of the lorry driver. However, the Tribunal below had
apportioned the liability as 50% : 50% both on the driver of the lorry and the
driver of the third respondent-bus. The Tribunal has arrived at a
compensation of Rs.2,93,500/-. Challenging the said Award, the third
respondent Corporation is before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
materials available on record. Since the challenge is only on the ground of
quantum, the discussion is also only on quantum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2330 of 2022
5. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 40% as partial
permanent, however the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation by
adopting percentage method and not a multiplier method. Therefore, the
challenge to the same is misplaced. The amounts arrived at under the other
heads are very reasonable and I see no reason to interfere with the said
judgment and decree of the Tribunal below. That apart, the appellant has not
made out any case to interfere with the well considered Award of the
Tribunal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.10.2022
srn
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Court), Erode
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2330 of 2022
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
C.M.A.No.2330 of 2022
28.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
