Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
K. SHANKAR
Versus
PALLAVAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD
A. A.O.1508 Of 1993
Decided On : 22-07-1999
NEGLIGENCE - ROAD ACCIDENT - LIABILITY - NO FAULT LIABILITY - CLAIMANT INJURED DUE TO NEGLIGENT DRIVING OF BUS - TRIBUNAL AWARDED NO FAULT LIABILITY OF RS. 25,000 - HELD, CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION OF RS. 4,50,000 ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 12% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Claimant, a helper and welder, was injured due to the negligent driving of a bus belonging to the respondent transport corporation. He sustained serious injuries on his right leg, which resulted in its complete amputation. He filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 4,50,000. The Tribunal, after enquiry, concluded that the claimant was negligent and not entitled to compensation, but awarded Rs. 25,000 towards no-fault liability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the claimant was negligent. It held that the evidence clearly showed that the driver of the bus was negligent and that the claimant sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident. The court also found that the Tribunal's assessment of damages was too low.
Issues: 1. Whether the claimant was negligent and not entitled to compensation. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the damages.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the claimant was not negligent. It relied on the evidence of the claimant and an eyewitness, which showed that the bus driver was driving negligently and that the claimant was hit from behind. The court also found that the F.I.R. registered against the claimant was not supported by the evidence and was likely created to escape liability. 2. The court held that the Tribunal erred in assessing the damages. It found that the Tribunal's assessment of Rs. 1,47,000 was too low, considering the claimant's permanent disability, loss of earning power, and other factors.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-objection. It awarded the claimant compensation of Rs. 4,50,000 along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment.
KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.
( 1 ) SHANKAR, the claimant is the appellant herein.
( 2 ) FOR the injuries sustained on his right leg which resulted in the complete amputation due to the negligent driving of the bus belonging to the Pallavan Transport corporation, the respondent herein, the appellant herein filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,50,000.
( 3 ) THE Tribunal, after enquiry, though concluded that compensation could be worked out to Rs. 1,47,000, held that the claimant would not be entitled to any compensation, since he alone was negligent. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000 towards no fault liability.
( 4 ) QUESTIONING this amount on no fault liability, Pallavan Transport Corporation, the respondent herein also filed a cross-objection on the ground that during the relevant time, no fault liability for the injuries would be only up to Rs. 7,500.
( 5 ) THE few facts which are required for the disposal of the appeal and the cross-objection could be stated as follows:" (A) Shankar, the appellant herein was working as a helper and welder in a lathe workshop. On 14. 2. 1989 at about 8. 30 p. m. after finishing his work, he was walking along Rajaji Salai on the western side of the road, in order to get the bus route No. 58. When he was going opposite to Harbour Police Station, the bus bearing registration No. TCB 4663, route No. 57 V came from south to north at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and turned towards the extreme western side of the road and hit against the claimant. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained serious injuries on the right leg. He was taken to the hospital. He took treatment for about two months. Ultimately, his entire right leg was amputated. (b) Originally, the right leg up to knee was removed. Therefore, in the petition which had been filed initially the claim was made only for Rs. 2,00,000. During the pendency of the petition, leg up to thigh was removed and amputated. So, he filed another petition for enhancing the claim amount to Rs. 4,50,000. (c) During the course of enquiry, in order to prove the negligence of the bus driver, the claimant examined himself as PW 1 and others as PW 2 to PW 5, exhs. Al for A5 were marked on the side of the claimant. On the other side, RW 1, the driver, RW 2, the A. D. S. I. of police and RW 3, Hemanthakumar, one of the passengers were examined and exhs. Rl to R4 were marked. (d) On analysing the material evidence placed before the Tribunal by both the parties, the Tribunal concluded that the injured/claimant was alone negligent and so, he would not be entitled to any amount as compensation. However, towards no fault liability Rs. 25,000 was awarded. "
( 6 ) AS indicated earlier, the Tribunal, though calculated the amount of compensation as Rs. 1,47,000 in terms of the loss, found that the claimant was negligent and that, therefore, he would not be entitled to any amount of compensation.
( 7 ) THE impugned award is being assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant on the ground that the Tribunal has not analysed the evidence properly and by overlooking the vital materials, wrongly concluded that the injured was negligent.
( 8 ) EVEN though there is a finding by the tribunal that the injured would not be entitled to any amount of compensation, being dissatisfied with the award of rs. 25,000 as no fault liability, the Pallavan Transport Corporation has filed the cross-objection mainly on the ground that injured would be entitled to only Rs. 7,500 for no fault liability under the prevailing provisions then.
( 9 ) I heard the counsel for the parties.
( 10 ) ON going through the award impugned and the materials, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the relevant materials available on record in the proper perspective and consequently, there has been a miscarriage of justice through a wrong finding to the effect that the injured was negligent.
( 11 ) TO arrive at such a
AI
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
