Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 86
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI & MRS. JUSTICE S. VIMALA
S. Sundaramurthy
Versus
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited Represented by its Managing Director
C.M.A.Nos.720 & 3366 of 2011
Decided On :Decided on: 05-01-2012
For the Appellant:A. Babu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. P.T. Salim Fathima, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation based on the impact of permanent disability on the claimant's life and earnings, as supported by legal provisions and precedents.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - 2011 ACJ 1971 - The court discussed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the impact of disability on the claimant's life and earnings, and the legal provisions allowing compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning capacity.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a temple clerk, sustained severe injuries due to a bus accident and filed a claim petition. The Tribunal found the accident to be due to the negligent driving of the bus and awarded compensation. Both the appellant and the respondent-Transport Corporation filed appeals challenging the compensation amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the finding of the Tribunal regarding the negligent driving of the bus and considered the impact of the claimant's disability on his life and earnings. It enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, taking into account the nature of the injury, treatment, disability, and attendant charges.
Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of compensation and the impact of the claimant's disability on his earning capacity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal provisions allowing compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning capacity, as established in the 2011 ACJ 1971 case, to justify the enhancement of compensation.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal by the appellant and dismissed the appeal by the respondent-Transport Corporation. It directed the respondent to deposit the enhanced compensation to the credit of the claim petition with interest.
S. VIMALA. J.,
1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.720 of 2011 has been filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called as the "Tribunal") in M.C.O.P.No.721 of 2006 on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3366 of 2001 has been filed by the Appellant-Transport Corporation challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.721 of 2006 contending that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive and that the findings on negligence is incorrect.
3. In both the cases, common question of fact and law arises for consideration, and hence the common Judgment is pronounced.
4. Brief facts are that the Appellant/claimant-S.Sundaramurthy, aged about 50 years is employed as Clerk in Arulmigu Parthasarathy Temple, Triplicane and was earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month. On 30.01.2006, when the appellant/claimant tried to board the bus, the driver took the bus in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the appellant/claimant had fallen down from the bus and sustained multiple injuries and Grade III compound fracture of both bones at left leg and consequently, he suffered loss of damage to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/-and claiming the same, Claim petition has been filed.
5. The respondent filed counter denying the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the respondent-Transport Corporation and further alleging that the appellant/claimant himself was guilty of negligence in trying into board the moving bus and therefore, the respondent-Transport Corporation is not liable to pay compensation. The nature of injury, period of treatment and alleged disability are all denied. The compensation claimed is said to be excessive.
6. The appellant/claimant himself has been examined as P.W.1. The Junior Assistant of Government General Hospital has been examined as P.W.2. The doctor, who had issued the disability certificate has been examined as P.W.3. The driver of the respondent-Transport Corporation bus has been examined as R.W.1 and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has given a finding that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-3243 and also that the respondent-Transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs.4,36,000/-. As against this fair and decretal order dated 14.09.2010, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed one by appellant/claimant praying for just compensation and the other one by the respondent-Transport Corporation seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.09.2010.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant as well as the respondent-Transport Corporation.
8. The first contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Transport Corporation is that the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent-Transport Corporation has to be set aside. This contention, in our considered view, does not merit acceptance, as the Tribunal has given a finding based upon the oral evidence of P.W.1, Ex.P.1-Copy of First Information Report and the evidence of R.W.1. Therefore, the finding of fact, as to the negligent driving of bus recorded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.
9. Main contentions are raised only with reference to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,36,000/- under the following break-up details:-
10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the first contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Transport Corporation is that once the Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of permanent disability, the Tribunal cannot award further compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity. This contention
