Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Puvaneswaran @ Karthick ... on 19 October, 2023
2023/MHC/4819
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.M.A(MD)NO.1048 OF 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.14280 of 2023
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Kumbakonam Diision-II,
Periyamilaguparai,
Tiruchirappalli :Appellant/Petitioner
.vs.
Puvaneswaran @ Karthick Puvaneswaran :
:Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
the Motor vehicles Act against the judgement and award made in
M.C.O.P.No.81 of 2009, dated 20.2.2020, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate
Judge),Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellant :Mr.K.Ramaiah
JUDGMENT
*********
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the award
made in M.C.O.P.No.81 of 2009, dated 20.2.2020, on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(III Additional Subordinate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judge),Tiruchirappalli.
2.The respondent, as claimant, filed M.C.O.P.No.81 of 2009
claiming compensation of Rs.6 lakhs.The Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.12,72,000/- as compensation. Challenging the quantum of
compensation, this appeal is filed.
3.The case of the respondent/claimant is that on 14.2.2008
at about 11.30 a.m, the respondent’s father was riding TVS XL
Super bearing Registration No. TN 45 D 9794 with the respondent
as pillion rider from south to north near Reliance Cellphone Stop at
Thiruvanaikoil main road. At that time, the bus bearing Registration
No. TN 45 N 1913 came from behind in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result, the
respondent suffered fracture injuries on his hib, left leg and foot.
His urinal bladder got ruptured. He suffered injuries in hib and all
over the body. He had taken treatment at Balaji Nursing Home,
Thiruvanaikoil, Government Hospital, Srirangam, Government
Hospital, Trichy and then at KMC Hospital, Trichy. He was aged 18
years at the time of accident and working as Washerman/Laundry
worker and earned Rs.6000/-p.m.Due to the accident, he suffered
disability, that made him unemployable and thus claimed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation of Rs.6 lakhs.
4.This claim was resisted by the respondent stating that the
accident had happened not due to the rash and negligent driving of
the transport Corporation bus driver, but due to the rash and
negligent driving of the two wheeler driver. A plea was taken that
the owner and insurer of the two wheeler should be impleaded as
parties. The claim of employment and income of the respondent was
denied.
5.During the course of enquiry, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P1
to Ex.P4 were marked. R.W.1 was examined on the side of the
appellant and no exhibits were marked.
6.On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,72,000/- as compensation.
Challenging this award, this appeal is filed.
7.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
that there is no disability certificate produced and marked in this
case, however, the Tribunal had taken the disability of the
respondent at 50% and awarded compensation of Rs.7,56,000/- for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
loss of future income and on other grounds. However, though a plea
was raised with regard to negligence of the rider of the two wheeler,
the learned Tribunal rejected the defense set out by the appellant
with regard to the negligence aspect. The aspect of negligence was
also not canvassed before this Court. The only aspect challenged is
the quantum of compensation awarded.
8.On going through the records, especially, the award passed
by the learned Tribunal, the Tribunal fixed the transport
Corporation was responsibile for the accident taking into
consideration of the fact that the bus driver hit the two wheeler
from behind. On the point of quantum of compensation, the learned
Tribunal had considered the injuries suffered by the
respondent/claimant in extenso. It is seen from the order of the
Tribunal that the respondent was subjected to medical examination
by the Medical Board. The Medical Board issued Certificate of
Disability and that was marked as Ex.C1. As per Ex.C1, the Medical
Board arrived at the disability of the respondent at 50%.The
learned Tribunal based on the evidence produced, found that the
disability of the respondent can be safely taken at 50%. Thus
proceeded to fix the compensation by adopting multiplier method.
By employment as washerman, the respondent/claimant said to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
have been earning a sum of Rs.6000/-p.m. The Tribunal taking into
consideration all the relevant aspects, especially, that the
respondent was working in an unauthorized sector, fixed the
monthly income of the respondent at Rs.5000/-p.m. Adopting the
monthly income of the respondent at 5000/-p.m., added 40%
towards future prospects calculated the loss of future income at Rs.
7,56,000/-(Rs.5000/- +Rs.2000/-(Rs.7000 x 12 x 15 x 50/100). It
is seen that the Petitioner sustained pelvis impairment and urethral
impairment. Thus the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for
loss of marriage propsects and marital enjoyment. A sum of Rs.l
lakh was awarded under the head of pain and suffering. On the
basis of medical receipts, a sum of Rs.1,37,908/- was awarded
towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards extra
nourishment. Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.15,000/-
towards transport expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income
during the accident period and Rs.3000/- towards loss of clothe and
articles has been awarded.The award of all these amounts as
compensation under various heads, in the considered view of this
Court, considering the nature of the injuries and disablity suffered
by the respondent, is just and appropriate.
9.One of the ground of the learned counsel for the appellant is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the Tribunal had passed an award in excess of the
compensation claimed.The settled proposition in this regard in
Meena Devi .vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @Nemchand Mahto and
others reported in 2022(2)TN MAC 605(SC) is that in
appropriate cases, whether materials are available or not, the
Tribunal is empowered to grant compensation in excess of the
amount claimed. Therefore the Tribunal awarding compensation in
excess of the amount claimed in the claim Petition, cannot be
faulted.
10.In fine, the award of compensation at Rs.12,72,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal, in the considered view of this Court , is
just and fair compensation and does not call for any interference.In
this view, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.10.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
vsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(IIIrd Additional Subordinate Judge),
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)NO.1048 OF 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.14280 of 2023
19.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
