Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 636
High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Division II, Rep.by Managing Director
Versus
S. Jeevanandham & Another
C.M.A.No. 3176 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided On :17-02-2010
For the Appellant:A. Babu, Advocate.
For the Respondents: -------.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the petitioner.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166, Section 163(A) - The court discussed the accident involving a minor petitioner and a bus, the assessment of compensation, and the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The key legal provisions discussed include Section 166 and Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a minor, sustained severe injuries in a bus accident and claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,03,942/-, which was appealed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Division II, Erode.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the minor petitioner had sustained grievous injuries and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.6,12,942/-, considering the magnitude of the injuries and the loss of sexual life of the minor school going boy.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the accident, entitlement to compensation, quantum of compensation, and the assessment of loss of income and medical expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the evidence of the injuries sustained by the minor petitioner, the assessment of loss of income and medical expenses, and the deprivation of sexual relationship due to the accident.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous appeal was dismissed, and the compensation amount was enhanced from Rs.4,03,942/- to Rs.6,12,942/-, modifying the Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent, against the Award and Decree, dated 21.06.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.952 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional Subordinate Court, Erode, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,03,942/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.
2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/second respondent, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Division II, Erode has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.
3. The short facts of the claim case is as follows:
On 02.11.1998, when the petitioner was riding his bicycle on the Tiruppur to Perumanallur road near the new bus stand and near to Vigneswara Xerox, from south to north and keeping to the extreme left side of the road, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN33 N0315, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bicycle. As a result of this, the petitioner sustained severe injuries on his hip and his bicycle was damaged. Immediately, afterwards, the petitioner had taken first aid treatment at T.N.F.Hospital, Tiruppur and later on taken treatment at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, wherein surgery and blood transfusion were done. The petitioner sustained fractures on the bottom half of the right knee and in his hip in the accident and sustained injuries on his right arm and right shoulder. His small intestine has also been affected and even after the treatment the petitioner is not able to move his right arm and right shoulder. As the petitioner is not able to emit urine, a catheter has been fixed in the body of the petitioner and urine is being extracted into a bag attached to the tube. As a result of the accident, the kidney of the petitioner has also been affected. The petitioners school education has also been affected. Therefore, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-from the second respondent, the owner of the said bus involved in the accident, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered in Crime No.1213/1998.
5. The second respondent, in his Counter, which the first respondent was also in agreement with, has resisted the claim denying the manner of accident as alleged in the claim. It was submitted that the first respondent, the driver of the bus started the bus at Tiruppur bus stand and drove the bus bearing registration No.TN33 N0315 on the Nambiyur-Tiruppur route at a moderate speed. Subsequently, the bus was stopped at the new bus stand to facilitate passengers to alight and board the bus. After this, the conductor blew the whistle and the bus was started slowly. After the bus had proceeded slowly forward for about 10 feet, on hearing the loud commotion and noise heard from outside of the bus and as the passengers in the bus had asked the driver of the bus to stop the bus, the first respondent stopped the bus. It was then seen that the petitioner, who had tried to overtake the bus and tried to come ahead of the bus, had dashed his cycle against the front portion of the bus and caused the accident. It was submitted that the petitioner had courted the accident and that the first respondent has not been responsible for the accident. It was submitted that as the accident had been caused due to the fault of the petitioner, the second respondent has submitted that the averments in the claim regarding the age, education, nature of injuries and manner of treatment of the petitioner has to be proved. It was also submitted that the claim was excessive and has to be dismissed with costs.
6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely:
1. Was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent?
