Back
2000 Supreme(Mad) 535
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM
RAJENDRAN
Versus
SELVARAJ
C.M.A.391 Of 1994
Decided On :Decided on: 08-06-2000
For the Appearing Parties:I. Mahaboob Sheriff, K.S. Narasimhan, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the broad interpretation of the term 'damage to property' under the Motor Vehicles Act to include consequential and incidental loss for the purpose of calculation of compensation, and the absence of specific provisions for compensation for economic loss or revenue loss arising out of damage to the property.
Headnote:
NEGLIGENCE - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 110(1), Section 165(1) - The judgment discusses the negligence on the part of the driver and the quantum of compensation granted in each case. The court interprets the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and 1988, and emphasizes the broad interpretation of the term 'damage to property' to include consequential and incidental loss for the purpose of calculation of compensation. The court also highlights the absence of specific provisions for compensation for economic loss or revenue loss arising out of damage to the property and the subsequent statutory changes in the 1988 Act. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legislative framework and judicial precedents to support its interpretation of the legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a common award rendered in motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, involving an accident caused by a bus. The claimants sought compensation for damages to their properties and loss of income due to the accident. The insurance company and the owner of the vehicle disputed the manner of the accident and the quantum of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found negligence on the part of the driver and upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It discussed the quantum of compensation granted in each case and modified the quantum of compensation in one case. The court also interpreted the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the broad interpretation of the term 'damage to property' to include consequential and incidental loss for the purpose of calculation of compensation.
Issues: The issues involved negligence on the part of the driver, the quantum of compensation granted in each case, and the interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding compensation for economic loss or revenue loss arising out of damage to the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the broad interpretation of the term 'damage to property' to include consequential and incidental loss for the purpose of calculation of compensation. The court also discussed the absence of specific provisions for compensation for economic loss or revenue loss arising out of damage to the property and the subsequent statutory changes in the 1988 Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, except for one case where the quantum of compensation was modified. The court upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and provided a detailed interpretation of the legal provisions.
K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, J.
( 1 ) ALL these appeals arise out of a common award rendered in M. C. O. P. Nos. 382, 387 and 388 of 1992 respectively on the file of the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. The insurance company and the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident are the appellants in the above appeals.
( 2 ) THE claim petitions were filed by the victims of an accident which took place on 2. 7. 1992 at about 2. 15 p. m. The place of accident was Nellikuppam-Cuddalore main road. According to the claimants, the bus belonging to the appellant No. 1 bearing registration No. TN-31-6697, plying from Cuddalore to Panrutti, proceeded at a high speed very rashly and negligently and with the result went out of control and crashed against several shops dashing various movable and immovable properties and also causing serious injuries to some of the occupants.
( 3 ) IN C. M. A. No. 391 of 1994, the claimant being owner of door No. 176 contended that he was running a Rice Mill in the premises and as a result of the accident, the building as well as machineries were damaged and also according to him, as a result of the stoppage of the mill, he had lost considerable income and incurred a heavy loss. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was claimed as compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000.
( 4 ) IN C. M. A. No. 392 of 1994, the claimant being occupant of door No. 174 contended that he was residing in the said property which was severely damaged as a result of the accident. One Sakunthala and Ganesan who were also present sustained grievous injuries. Hence, for the damage caused to the property, the claimant sought for a sum of Rs. 45,000 as compensation and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000.
( 5 ) IN C. M. A. No. 393 of 1994, the claimant being the occupant of door No. 175 contended that she along with others were sitting on the front portion of the building and as a result of the accident, she and her grandson sustained grievous injuries. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was claimed as compensation and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 85,000.
( 6 ) IN all these cases, identical defence was raised by the appellant No. 2, insurance company, disputing the manner of the accident and the quantum of compensation as claimed by the respondent and that the driver of the vehicle did not have valid licence to drive.
( 7 ) THE Tribunal by a common order held that the accident had resulted only due to negligence on the part of the driver and awarded various amounts of compensation in each case as detailed above. Hence, the above appeals.
( 8 ) NEGLIGENCE being an issue common to all of the cases may be dealt with first. The very nature of the accident, the vehicle having dashed against a series of shops and residential properties belonging to the claimants situated on the side of the road speaks for itself. The failure on the part of the appellant to examine their driver or for that matter any witness to speak about the accident, also clinches the issue of negligence in favour of the claimants.
( 9 ) THE only issue to be considered is the quantum of compensation granted in each case and for convenience C. M. A. Nos. 392 and 393 of 1994 are dealt with first. C. M. A. No. 392 of 1994
( 10 ) ACCORDING to the claimant, his entire shop was damaged including a teak wood door in front of the house. The building was also damaged. According to the claimant, the premises had been rented at rs. 800 per month and as a result of the accident, he had been rendered without due income. He had also examined himself as PW 3 and has given the details of the damages caused to the building and other materials. There was no contra evidence on the side of the appellants and hence, on a fair assessment of the damages, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the compensation at Rs. 40,000 and I find no reason to interfere with the award. Hence, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. C. M. A. No. 393 of 1994
( 11 ) THE claimant Sakunthala had examined hers
