Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6912 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 June, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.545 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A.(MD).No.545 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.7084 of 2023
The General Manager
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation,
Marudhupathi,
Managiri Road,
Karaikudi. ... Appellant
-Vs-
V.Kalyani ... Respondent
PRAYER: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.
21 of 2019, dated 23.10.2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court, Ramanathapuram.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.545 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub
Court, Ramanathapuram in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2019, dated 23.10.2021, the present
appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
On 27.06.2018, when the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing
Registration No.TN 63 N 1598, the bus was driven in a rash and negligent
manner and while overtaking a TATA AC vehicle, which was proceeding in front
of the bus, the bus was dashed against the bus bearing Registration No.TN 63 N
1446. As a result, the claimant, who was seated in the last rear portion of the bus
sustained grievous injuries and his right hand cut into three pieces. The injured
was aged about 52 years and he was a coolie and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per
month.
3. It is the contention of the respondent/Transport Corporation before the
Tribunal that the injured has kept his hand outside the bus and despite the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).No.545 of 2023
warning given by the conductor, he did not take the hand inside. As a result, he
sustained injuries.
4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined
and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked and on the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was
examined and no document was marked.
5. The Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence and the
F.I.R., found that only the driver of the offending vehicle driven the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and awarded a sum of
Rs.11,95,292/-.
6. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/Transport Corporation that only the injured has kept his hand outside
the bus, which resulted in the accident and he lost his hand. Therefore, some
contributory negligence has to be fixed against the claimant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).No.545 of 2023
7. In the light of the above submission, now the point for consideration in
this appeal is whether the appellant/Transport Corporation has proved the
contributory negligence on the part of the injured.
8. It is not in dispute that while overtaking the vehicle proceeding in front
of the bus, the bus driver swerved the bus right side. As a result, the bus was
dashed against the body of the TATA AC vehicle. In that process, the injured has
sustained injuries. It is an admitted fact that the injured was seated in a rear side
of the bus and R.W.1 was examined in this regard and while driving the vehicle,
R.W.1 could not have noticed how the injured was seated.
9. Further, the evidence of R.W.1 itself clearly indicate that already
departmental action has been initiated against him for driving the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and the accident also occurred, while overtaking the vehicle
proceeding in front of the bus. This fact clearly indicate that the driver of the bus
was negligent in driving the vehicle and caused the accident. Therefore, the
contention of the appellant that there was a contributory negligence on the part of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).No.545 of 2023
the claimant cannot be countenanced. As far as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, this aspect clearly established on record that the injured was an
agricultural coolie and his right hand has been completed amputated. Therefore,
he may not be in a position to continue any work particularly the agricultural
coolie. Such being the position, the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier
method. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal does not require any
interference and there is no merit in this appeal.
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant / Transport
Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the
same with accrued interest and cost. No costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.06.2023
akv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).No.545 of 2023
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).No.545 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
akv
C.M.A.(MD).No.545 of 2023
23.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!