Madras High Court
G.Murugan vs The Managing Director on 5 January, 2024
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
C.M.A.Nos.421 & 3118 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.M.A.Nos.421 & 3118 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.29521 of 2023
C.M.A.No.421 of 2023:
G.Murugan
...Appellant
Vs
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited,
Pallavan House, Anna Salai,
Chennai 2
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this appeal and to enhance the amount awarded in
MCOP.No.7351 of 2017 dated 05.03.2022 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (IV Small Causes Court) Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondent : Mr.A.Vinothraj
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.421 & 3118 of 2023
C.M.A.No.3118 of 2023:
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited,
Pallavan House, Anna Salai,
Chennai 2
...Appellant
Vs
G.Murugan
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2022
passed in MCOP.No.7351 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chennai (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai by allowing this appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Vinothraj
For Respondent : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appeal in C.M.A.No.421 of 2023 has been filed by the claimant
challenging the negligence fixed by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.421 & 3118 of 2023
2. The appeal in C.M.A.No.3118 of 2023 has been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that since
the FIR was filed against the injured, the Tribunal had fixed the contributory
negligence at the rate of 50% against the injured. Further, he would contend
that even though it was deposed by the driver of the bus that only due to the
sudden application of break, the injured was thrown out of the bus, the said
evidence was not at all considered by the Tribunal because for the Tribunal, it
appears as a single line evidence and there is no law to ignore when a vital
evidence is available. Therefore, since the Tribunal has wrongly came to the
conclusion and fixed the negligence only on the ground that the FIR has been
filed against the injured, he prays this Court to set aside the negligence fixed by
the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the Transport Corporation would submit that
in the present case, only after taking into consideration of the information
available in the FIR, the Tribunal had fixed the contributory negligence against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.421 & 3118 of 2023
the injured at 50% and hence, he requests this Court to confirm the same.
Further, he would submit that the quantum of compensation has been
challenged by the Transport Corporation vide C.M.A.No.3118 of 2023 since the
same is on higher side.
5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that since the left leg of the injured was amputated and the disability was
determined by the medical board as 90%, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the
functional disability of the injured as 100% and hence, he requests this Court to
confirm the same.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and
also perused the materials available on record.
7. In the present case, at the time of examination, the PW1 had stated as
follows:
ehd; 04/02/2016 md;W fhiy Rkhh; 12/00
kzpf;F jpUty;ypf;nfzpapy; ,Ue;J 32V vd;w
ngUe;jpy; Vwk;nghJ ,e;j tpgj;J ele;jJ/ ehd;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.421 & 3118 of 2023
ngUe;jpy; gazk; bra;jjw;fhdg; gazr;rl
P i
; l
jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/
8. Further, in the cross-examination, he had stated as follows:
tpgj;J rkaj;jpy; ngUe;J rw;W Tl;lkhf
,Ue;jJ/ ehd; ngUe;jpd; Xl;Ldh; ,Uf;iff;F
2tJ rPl;oy; cs;s fk;gpia gpoj;Jf;bfhz;L
,Ue;njd;/ tpgj;J rkaj;jpy; ngUe;jpd; gof;fl;oy;
ahUk; gazk; bra;atpy;iy/ tpgj;J ele;j rhiy
jpUty;ypf;nfzp bkapd; rhiyapy; uj;jpdnfg;
Xl;ly; vjpnu ele;jJ/ uj;jpdnfg; vjphpy; ngUe;J
epWj;jk; fpilahJ/
9. A reading of the aforesaid depositions of PW1 makes it clear that the
injured had not travelled on the foot board of the bus and only due to the sudden
application of brake, the injured was thrown out of the bus. Further, the said
statement was also confirmed by the driver of the bus (RW1) at the time of
examination, wherein he had stated as follows:
tpgj;jpy; fhak; mile;jth; ehd; ngUe;ij
jPobud;W gpnuf;nghl;ljpdhy; jhd; ngUe;jpy;
,Ue;J fPnH tpGe;jhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.421 & 3118 of 2023
10. A perusal of the above deposition makes it clear that only due to the
sudden application of brake, the injured was thrown out of the bus. However,
the Tribunal had considered the aforesaid depositions as a single line evidence
and fixed the negligence against the injured based on the information available
in FIR. However, this Court is of the view that when a vital evidence is available,
the same has to be considered by the Court even if it a single line evidence. In
such case, the aforesaid single line evidence indicates that the accident was
occurred only due to the sudden application of brake and the same was also
confirmed by the driver of the bus. Hence, the said statement is a very vital
evidence and it has to be almost considered as an eye-witness. However, the
Tribunal had failed to consider the said evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the fixation of 50% negligence against the injured is not proper and the
same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, this Court is inclined to fix the entire
negligence against the driver of the bus. Accordingly, the entire negligence is
fixed against the driver of the bus.
11. Further, with regard to the challenge made against the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.421 & 3118 of 2023
since the left leg of the injured was amputated, the Tribunal had fixed the
functional disability as 100% and hence, there is no force in the submission
made by the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation. Thus, this
Court does not find any fault in the said aspect of determining the compensation
by the Tribunal since the injured, who was aged about 36 years at the time of
accident, cannot carry on the day-to-day activities and he has to depend on
someone for the same. In such view, this Court is inclined to confirm the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the same stands
confirmed.
12. In the result, the CMA.No.3118 of 2023, which has been filed by the
Transport Corporation, is dismissed and the CMA.No.421 of 2023, which has
been filed by the injured, is partly allowed.
13. Therefore, the Transport Corporation is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.27,26,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment, to the credit of MCOP.No.7351 of 2017 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.421 & 3118 of 2023
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (IV Court of Small Causes). Further,
the claimant/injured shall pay necessary Court fee, if any, on the enhanced
compensation. Thereafter, the Tribunal is directed to immediately transfer the
entire amount to the bank account of the injured by way of RTGS, in the same
proportions determined by the Court below, within a period of 3 weeks from the
deposit and from the date of receipt of the Bank details obtained for the claimant
or application for withdrawal from the claimant, whichever is earlier. No costs.
05.01.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
nsa
To:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.421 & 3118 of 2023
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.
nsa
C.M.A.Nos.421 & 3118 of 2023
05.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
