Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Jesuraj on 19 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Division – 1,
Kumbakonam. ... Appellant
Vs.
Jesuraj. ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 18.08.2007
passed in M.C.O.P.No.23 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kulithalai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Prakash
For Respondent : Dispensed with
*****
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 7
C.M.A.(MD) No.1341 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The above appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation,
challenging the finding on negligence and the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The respondent had filed a claim petition stating that while he
was travelling in a bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation,
the driver of the bus dashed against the central median wall in a rash and
negligent manner, as a result of which he was thrown away from the bus
and sustained grievous injuries.
3. The appellant filed a counter, stating that the driver had applied
the brake suddenly to avoid a collision with another two wheeler, which
was ridden in a rash and negligent manner; that inadvertently, it dashed
against the wall of the central median and hence, there was no negligence
on the part of the driver; and that they were not liable to pay
compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and a doctor as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The appellant examined
R.W.1 and did not mark any documents.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation
submitted that the finding on negligence is contrary to the evidence of
R.W.1, who is the driver of the vehicle; that the evidence of the claimant
ought to have been rejected by the Tribunal; and that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
6. In view of the order that this Court proposes to pass, notice to
the sole respondent is dispensed with.
7. The points for consideration in the instant appeal are as follows:
‘a. Whether the finding on negligence by the Tribunal is justified?
b. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable?’
8. The claimant/respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and stated
that while he was travelling in the bus, the driver of the bus rode the bus
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the central median
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
wall, which caused the accident. The driver of the bus was examined as
R.W.1 and had deposed that he had dashed against the central median wall
to avoid an accident with a two wheeler, which was ridden in a rash and
negligent manner. However, it is seen that R.W.1 had not given any
complaint and he had also not challenged the FIR. Hence, the evidence of
R.W.1, who is an interested witness, does not inspire confidence. The
evidence of the respondent/claimant is corroborated by his version in the
FIR-Ex.P1. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal
with regard to negligence.
9. As regards the quantum, it is seen that the claimant had
sustained several injuries, including dislocation of bones in the hand and
the doctor had assessed the disability at 38%. The Tribunal had awarded
the total compensation of Rs.1,36,840/- for the disability and under other
heads including loss of income, medical expenses, pain and sufferings,
extra nourishment and transportation charges, which is reasonable.
Therefore, there is no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal. Hence, the
award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
10. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to pay the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,36,840/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Six
Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty only) together with interest at 7.5%
p.a., from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization and
costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight
(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is permitted to
withdraw the award amount with interest and costs, less the amount
already withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate application before the
Tribunal.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.10.2024
Index: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
apd
19.10.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
