Back
Madras High Court
KAILASAM,N. S. RAMASWAMI
A.P.Dorairaj - Appellant
Versus
State of Madras - Respondent
Decided On : 03/07/1973
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-A - ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - QUANTUM - INJURIES SUSTAINED BY CLAIMANT - LOSS OF SALARY - PROMOTIONAL PROSPECTS - GRATUITY PAYMENTS BY EMPLOYER - NOT TO BE CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING DAMAGES - AWARD MODIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, Dorairaj, was injured in a motor accident involving a police van. He filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. The Tribunal awarded him a total sum of Rs. 10,000, including Rs. 4,000 for special damages, Rs. 1,000 for expenses incurred for his betrothal ceremony, and Rs. 5,000 for permanent disability, physical and mental pain, and loss of promotion. The claimant filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, while the respondent, the State of Madras, filed an appeal contending that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation as the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the police van driver. It also found that the claimant had suffered severe injuries, including a compound fracture of both bones of the left leg, which resulted in permanent disability and affected his ability to ride a scooter and perform his job as a Junior Engineer-cum-Salesman. The court held that the Tribunal's award of Rs. 10,000 was too low and needed to be enhanced.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the police van driver. 2. Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. 3. Whether the Tribunal's award of Rs. 10,000 was adequate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence clearly established that the accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the police van driver. The driver took a sudden 'U' turn without giving any indication, resulting in a collision with the claimant's scooter. 2. The court held that the claimant was entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. It found that the injuries were severe and resulted in permanent disability, affecting the claimant's ability to work and ride a scooter. The court also considered the fact that the claimant's marriage had to be canceled due to the accident. 3. The court held that the Tribunal's award of Rs. 10,000 was too low and needed to be enhanced. It awarded a total sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation, including Rs. 5,000 for special damages, Rs. 1,000 for expenses incurred for the betrothal ceremony, Rs. 3,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 7,000 for loss of salary, Rs. 10,000 for loss of promotional prospects, and Rs. 500 for costs.
Final Decision: The court modified the Tribunal's award and directed the respondent to pay the claimant a total sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation within one month from the date of the judgment. The court dismissed the respondent's appeal and awarded proportionate costs to the claimant in the appeal filed by him.
N.S. RAMASWAMI, J. :- These two civil miscellaneous appeals are out of O. P. No. 153 of 1967 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras. The appellant in C. M. A. 332 of 1971 by name Dorairaj filed the claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident which occurred on the Mount Road on 19-11-1966 at about 8-50 a.m. Originally he claimed a total sum of Rs. 48,000 towards compensation but later he was allowed to amend the petition making a claim of total compensation of Rs 1,30,000. The respondent to the petition is the State of Madras by Commissioner of police, Madras, the Motor Vehicle involved in the accident being a Police van. The Tribunal below awarded a total sum of Rs. 10,000 in favour of the claimant, Rs. 4,000 towards moneys spent by the claimant for treatment etc., Rs. 1,000 towards moneys spent by him in respect of his betrothel ceremony which took place sometime prior to the accident and a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards permanent disability, physical and mental pain and for loss of promotion. C. M. A. 332 of 1971 is filed by the claimant praying for enhancement of the compensation. The other C. M. A. is filed by the respondent to the petition contending that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation on the ground that the accident was not as a result of rash and negligent driving of the police van.
2. The first question that arises in these two civil miscellaneous appeals is whether the accident was as a result of rash or negligent driving of the police van bearing registration No. MSR 1953. The accident occurred near Saidapet Police Station where the road runs north to south. The police van in question was originally parked in front of the police station which is west of the road, facing east. The road at the place in question is 48 ft. 6 inches wide. The police van was parked on the western extremity of the road just in front of the police station. Dorairaj, the claimant, was going on his scooter from south to north. When he was approaching the place where the lorry had been parked, the driver of the van started it and took a 'U' turn in order to go southwards (originally the van was facing north). According to the claimant, the driver of the van did not give any indication whatsoever that he was taking a turn and that the van was so turned all of a sudden, there was an impact of the two vehicles in which the claimant's left leg was severely injured. The case of the State of Madras (who would hereinafter be referred to as the respondent) has been that the driver of the police van took the 'U' turn only after giving all necessary signals and taking the precaution that there was no traffic coming from south and approaching the van and that the impact between two vehicles happened only because of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter of the claimant. The material evidence regarding the accident is that of the claimant as P.W. 1, that of Ramanujam. the driver of the van, as R.W. 1 and that of Arumugham, a police constable who was in the police van, as R.W. 2. Seethapathi, P.W. 4. a Head Constable of police, investigated the accident, drew the rough plan Ex. P-34 and ultimately charge-sheeted R.W. 1, the driver of the van. for causing hurt by rash and negligent driving.
However, R.W. 1 had been acquitted by the criminal court.
3. From the evidence on record it is quite clear that the accident wan brought about only by the rash and negligent driving of the police van.
...... ... ... (Evidence omitted) .... ... ......
We are satisfied that the impact between the two vehicles had occurred only because the police van had been turned all of a sudden after the scooter had come very close to it and the evidence of P.W. 1 that the police van driver did not even show any sign before turning, is also acceptable.
3. The other question is about the quantum of compensation. After the amendment of the petition, the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
