Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Dhanasekaran on 21 March, 2025
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
C.M.A.No.3001 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
C.M.A. No. 3001 of 2023
and
C.M.P. No. 28377 of 2023
The Managing Director,
Karnataka State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Santhi Nagar, K.H.Road,
Bengaluru, Karnataka State – 560 027. ... Appellant
Vs.
Dhanasekaran
S/o. Mr. Madhan,
No.1/177, Kudimenahalli Village,
Agaram Post, Pochampalli Taluk,
Krishnagiri District, now residing at
Govinda Chetty Street,
Kaveripattinam Post,
Krishnagiri Taluk and District. ... Respondent
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 09:14:34 pm )
C.M.A.No.3001 of 2023
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 21.09.2022 made in
M.C.O.P.No.204 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Special Subordinate Judge) at Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr. T. Thiyagarajan.
For Respondent : Mr. T. Panchatsaram.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, J)
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant, KSRTC,
challenging the award dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Krishnagiri, in M.C.O.P.No.204 of 2019.
The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.36,37,512/- to the claimant for the
injuries sustained in the road traffic accident involving the KSRTC bus bearing
registration No. KA 57 F 1061.
2. Brief Facts: On 09.06.2018, the respondent was riding a Pulsar two-wheeler
bearing Reg.No. TN 29 AK 1039 on the Uthangarai to Mathur road when the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 09:14:34 pm )
KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No. KA 57 F 1061, belonging to the appellant, and
driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle, causing
grievous injuries to the respondent/claimant. As a result of the accident, the
respondent sustained multiple injuries, including fractures and internal damage,
and underwent extensive medical treatment at various hospitals. Consequently, the
respondent claimed a total compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-.
3. The appellant filed a counter, denying the averments made in the claim
petition, contending that the respondent had driven the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and did not possess a valid driving license. The appellant further
claimed that the injuries sustained were simple in nature and, therefore, the
respondent was not entitled to any compensation, seeking the dismissal of the
petition.
4. In support of the claim, the respondent examined himself as PW1 and marked
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 as documentary evidence. On the appellant’s side, the driver of
the bus was examined as RW1, and the District Medical Board Report issued by
the Government Headquarters Hospital, Krishnagiri, was marked as Ex.C.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 09:14:34 pm )
5. After thoroughly considering the pleadings, oral evidence, and documentary
records, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.36,37,512/- as compensation to the
respondent, payable by the appellant, after deducting 10% towards non-possession
of a valid driving license by the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal.
6. The primary grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are as follows: The
Tribunal erred in attributing negligence solely to the driver of the KSRTC bus
without properly appreciating the evidence and the counter-statement filed by the
appellant. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the accident occurred solely due
to the claimant’s negligence in rashly riding the motorcycle and colliding with the
bus.The Tribunal erroneously fixed 45% functional disability without adequate
proof or supporting medical evidence.The Tribunal wrongly awarded
compensation under various heads, including future medical expenses, without
substantiating evidence.The compensation awarded under heads such as
transportation, loss of amenities, additional nourishment, and attender charges
were excessive.The Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 09:14:34 pm )
claimant and did not properly analyze the evidence, including the Motor Vehicle
Inspector’s (MVI) report.
7. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ex.P.4 clearly indicates
that the front side of the sqaure glass of the lorry was broken and the front right
body sheet side was dented as the respondent has dashed the lorry and thus, the
entire contributory negligence is on the part of the respondent and hence, the
driver of the bus is not responsible for the accident. It is further submitted that the
respondent's movement was not crippled due to accident and hence, 45% adopted
towards functional disability has to be set aside and the income of the respondent
has been fixed at Rs.9,000/- without any basis and the same needs an interference.
It is further submitted that the compensation awarded on the other heads are highly
excessive and sought for allowing the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 09:14:34 pm )
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
accident has occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the bus who has
driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the respondent and
an FIR has also been registered in Cr.No.201 of 2018 stating that the negligence is
on the driver of the bus. Hence, the award of the tribunal does not warrant any
interference and sought for dismissing the appeal.
10. The questions that arise are whether the Tribunal was right in fixing
negligence on the driver of the KSRTC bus? Whether the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? Whether any modification is
warranted in the award amount.
11. Upon perusal of the records and evidence available, it is clear that the
Tribunal correctly assessed the accident as being caused by the rash and negligent
driving of the KSRTC bus driver. The MVI report and other evidence corroborated
that the bus was driven negligently, leading to the collision. There is no substantial
reason to interfere with the finding of negligence fixed by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 09:14:34 pm )
12. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of
Rs.36,37,512/- after deducting 10% for non-possession of a valid driving license.
The Tribunal correctly applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi cases in calculating loss of earning capacity
and future prospects.
13. However, it is noted that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under
the head of “Loss of Amenities.” After thoroughly analyzing the nature of injuries,
medical records, and evidence, this Court finds that awarding Rs.50,000/- under
the said head would suffice to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the
compensation under the head of “Loss of Amenities” is reduced from
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
14. Consequently, the total compensation amount is reduced from Rs.36,37,512/-
to Rs.35,87,512/- and the revised compensation is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 09:14:34 pm )
S.No Description Amount Amount Award
awarded by awarded by this confirmed or
Tribunal Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted or
reduced
1 Loss of earning Rs.1,156,680 Rs.1,156,680 Confirmed
capacity
2 Medical Rs.2,234,000 Rs.2,234,000 Confirmed
Expenses
3 Future Medical Rs.100,000 Rs.100,000 Confirmed
Expenses
4 Pain and Rs.200,000 Rs.200,000 Confirmed
Suffering
5 Transportation Rs.150,000 Rs.150,000 Confirmed
expenses
6 Additional Rs.50,000 Rs.50,000 Confirmed
nourishment
7 Damages to the Rs.1,000 Rs.1,000 Confirmed
cloths
8 Attender Charges Rs.50,000 Rs.50,000 Confirmed
9 Loss of amenities Rs.100,000 Rs.50,000 Reduced
Total Rs.4,041,680
Compensation
After deducting Rs.3,637,512 Rs.3,587,512 Reduced
10% towards
non-possession
of driving license
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 09:14:34 pm )
15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant is
partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellant is directed to deposit
the award amount now determined by this Court, together with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit (less the default
period, if any) along with interest and costs, if not already deposited and withdraw
the excessive amount already deposited if any, within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the respondent is
permitted to withdraw the award amount along with proportionate interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.K., J) (A.D.M.C., J)
21.03.2025
ay
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Court,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 09:14:34 pm )
VR Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 09:14:34 pm )
R.SURESH KUMAR, J
and
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 09:14:34 pm )
21.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 09:14:34 pm )
