Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Sumathi on 5 April, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.869 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.04.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.869 of 2018
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited,
Through its Managing Director,
Bye-pass Road,
Madurai. ... Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
Sumathi ... Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli in
M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2011, dated 24.02.2014.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For Respondent : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
C.M.A(MD)No.869 of 2018
JUDGEMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the transport corporation
challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2011 primarily on the ground of
quantum.
2. The injured claimant had contended that she was undertaking
tailoring work and while she was travelling in the bus belonging to the
respondent corporation, the bus got capsized and she sustained grievous
injuries in the said accident. The claimant had contented that she had a
fracture in the right hand above the knee, fracture in the right hand below
the knee, fracture in the right hand knee, injuries in the right side of the
chin, injuries in the right right hand big toe & the left leg knee and
regloving injury over right hand skin and muscles. The claimant had
claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation.
3. The respondent have filed a counter contending that there was
no rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent driver. Out of
many passengers boarded in the bus, only the petitioner had sustained
certain injuries due to her own negligence. She was sitting inside the bus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.869 of 2018
carelessly and in an inattentive position and was not cautious to avoid of
being thrown away and fell down on the front seat of the bus. The
respondent has also disputed the occupation and income of the petitioner.
4. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, arrived at a finding that the injured claimant was a passenger in
the bus belonging to the respondent transport corporation. The bus had
got capsized and the claimant had sustained grievous injuries. Therefore,
the accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving on
the side of the driver of the respondent corporation.
5. The tribunal further found that the left thumb was lost in the
said accident and right limb has lost all its functions and sensation and it
has become useless. The tribunal further found that the injured claimant
was carrying on tailoring business and hereafter, she would not able to
continue the said profession. Based upon the said findings, the tribunal
has passed an award as applied the multiplier method and arrived at a
compensation of Rs.8,17,118/-. This award is under challenge in the
present appeal.
6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.869 of 2018
the tribunal ought not to have applied the multiplier method in the case
of an injury and it should have awarded only for the permanent disability
said to have been sustained by the claimant. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant had further contended that more than
Rs.25,000/- has been awarded for transport expenses and Rs.35,000/- has
been awarded for pain and suffering, which are highly excessive and
hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal.
7. The service to the respondent could not be completed for want
of proper address.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on the side of
the appellant and perused the records.
9. The injured claimant was a passenger in the bus belonging to
the transport corporation and she had sustained injuries, because of the
fact that the bus had got capsized. The manner of accident will clearly
establish that the negligence could be attributed only to the driver of the
transport corporation. Therefore, the said finding of the tribunal does not
require any interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.869 of 2018
10. The claimant has produced Exhibits P.16 and P.17 photographs
to establish that she was undertaking a tailoring business and she was
earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. The tribunal has taken into
consideration her monthly income as Rs.3,000/-. The nature of injuries
sustained by her will clearly indicate that she has lost her thumb in her
left hand and her right hand has become completely functioneless due to
the grievous injuries sustained by her. This could be seen from the
disability certificate issued by the Orthopedic doctor. Exhibits P.2 and
P.3 discharge summaries issued by the hospital would also indicate that
she has sustained injuries to such an extent that she cannot continue her
tailoring business. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere in the award passed by the tribunal by invoking the multiplier
method considering the fact that the claimant has sustained functional
disability. The number of grievous injuries sustained by her and the loss
of left thumb and the loss of functions in the right hand would deserve
award of Rs.35,000/- towards love and suffering. Therefore, this Court
does not find that the award of the tribunal is either exorbitant or
unreasonable under any one of the heads.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.869 of 2018
11. Considering the above said facts, there are no merits in the
appeal. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No
costs.
05.04.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional Sub Court,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.869 of 2018
gbg
Order made in
C.M.A(MD)No.869 of 2018
05.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
