Madras High Court
Karaikudi Tamil Nadu State ... vs Paunthai ..1St on 8 June, 2023
C.M.A.(MD)No.704 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.704 of 2022
Karaikudi Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Rep by its Managing Director,
Madurai District. ...Appellant /1st Respondent
Vs.
1.Paunthai ..1st Respondent/Claimant
2.Sureshkumar ...2nd Respondent/2ndRespondent
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the impugned award passed in M.C.O.P.No.
229 of 2015 dated 29.01.2020 on the file of the MACT (Special Sub Court),
Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.P.M.Vishnu Varthanan
For R1 : Mr.K.Kumaravel
For R2 : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court), Madurai in
M.C.O.P.No.229 of 2015, dated 29.01.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.704 of 2022
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per
their rank before the Tribunal.
3.The brief facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are as follows:
On 19.06.2014, when the injured was travelling as a pillion rider in a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-58-S-8624, the Transport Corporation bus
bearing Registration No.TN-63-N-1550, which was driven in a rash and negligent
manner, hit the TATA Ace Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-63-H-9442, which
was coming behind the motorcycle, thereby the TATA Ace vehicle hit the
motorcycle of the claimant from the behind. As result, the claimant sustained
serious injuries. Hence, the claimant had filed a claim petition seeking
compensation.
4.The Transport Corporation before the Tribunal took a stand that the
TATA Ace vehicle was trying to overtake the motorcycle and in that process, the
said vehicle came to the right side of the road. At that time, to avoid the accident,
the driver of the bus applied break. However, the TATA Ace vehicle hit the bus.
There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.704 of 2022
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, three witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 were marked. On the side of the
respondents, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence
was marked. The disability certificate was marked as Ex.C1.
6.On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal
found that only the driver of the Transport Corporation drove the bus in a rash and
negligent manner and awarded the compensation as follows:
S.No. Particulars Amount
1. For disability Rs.5,04,000/-
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
3. For nutritious food Rs. 5,000/-
4. Attendant charges Rs. 15,000/-
5. Loss of belongings Rs. 2,000/-
6. Transportation charges Rs. 4,000/-
7. Medical expenses Rs.2,90,000/-
Total Rs.8,70,000/-
Challenging the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the
Transport Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.704 of 2022
7.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the driver of the
bus was not negligent in driving the bus. He drove the bus in a cautious manner.
In fact only the TATA Ace vehicle hit the motorcycle of the claimant from the
behind. Hence, the Tribunal had erred in fixing the liability on the part of the
appellant.
8.Whereas, the learned counsel for the claimant would submit that in an
another claim petition with regard to the same incident filed by some other
claimant, the Tribunal had held that only the driver of the Transport Corporation
bus had caused the accident in a negligent manner. The Transport Corporation had
satisfied with the said award and deposited the entire amount. Further, the
Transport Corporation had not filed any appeal against the said finding and the
above case had attained its finality. Such being the position, now the appellant
corporation cannot take a different view as if the driver of the Transport
Corporation was not negligent in driving the bus.
8.In view of the above submissions, now the points arise for
consideration in this appeal are:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.704 of 2022
(a)whether the Tribunal is right in fixing the liability on the part of the
driver of the appellant vehicle?
9.I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials placed on record.
10.It is the contention of the appellant that only the TATA Ace vehicle
caused the accident. R.W.1 in his evidence admitted that the TATA Ace vehicle
was proceeding in front of the bus. This fact clearly indicates that the bus only hit
the TATA Ace vehicle, which resulted in the accident. FIR was also registered
against the driver of the offending vehicle. In an another claim petition in
M.C.O.P.No.1304 of 2014 arisen out of the same accident, the negligence is fixed
on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation. The said award is also
marked as Ex.P10. The said award was passed on 30.09.2015 and the appellant
Transport Corporation had also deposited the entire compensation amount
satisfying with the award. When the finding in respect of the same accident is not
challenged and attained finality, now the appellant cannot take a different view in
this appeal contending that the driver of the appellant corporation is not negligent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.704 of 2022
in driving the bus. The very factum of FIR filed against the driver of the offending
vehicle and the award in an another claim petition arisen out of the same accident
clearly shows that the stand of the appellant is not correct.
11.The Tribunal considering the severe injuries sustained by the claimant
on the head and hip, amputation of the right toe and multiple fractures, particularly
the medial report, had fixed the notional income of the injured claimant at the rate
of Rs.6,000/- and adopted multiplier method and awarded the compensation as
stated above.
12.Taking note of the documents particularly, the medical certificate and
the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is of the view that the
multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be found fault. In fact the spinal
card of the claimant got damaged and there is functional disability at the rate of
40%. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity or
irregularity in the well reasonable award passed by the Tribunal warranting
interference of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.704 of 2022
13.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
14.The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal with interest and costs to the credit
of M.C.O.P.No.229 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal /Special Sub Court, Madurai within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount, if any already deposited.
On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount, less the
amount if any already withdrawn, by making necessary application before the
Tribunal. No costs.
08.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
ta
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
Special Sub Court, Madurai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.704 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ta
C.M.A.(MD)No.704 of 2022
08.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
