Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1300
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Villupuram Ltd
Versus
Sundaramoorthy
C.M.A.No.3110 of 2005
Decided On :29-03-2010
For the Appellant:A. Babu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:D. Baskar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for personal injury and loss of income under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - M.C.O.P.No.239 of 2003 - 1.84.000 - The court discussed the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the principles of compensation for personal injury and loss of income. The court's decision was influenced by the evidence presented, including medical reports, and the interpretation of the extent of disability and loss of income.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sustained injuries in a bus accident and claimed compensation. The respondent disputed the extent of injuries and the cause of the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which was appealed by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the original award and modified the compensation amount based on the evidence presented and the arguments of the counsels.
Issues: The issues included determining the cause of the accident and the entitlement of the petitioner to compensation, as well as the quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the assessment of evidence, including medical reports and witness testimonies, to determine the extent of disability, loss of income, and other factors influencing the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the compensation amount to Rs.1,55,000 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 07.04.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.239 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. II, Cuddalore, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.
2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal.
3. The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 22.08.2008, at about 16.30 hours, when the petitioner was travelling in the respondents Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN32 N0566 from Pattambakkam to Cuddalore, at Thirupapuliyur bus stand the petitioner while getting down from the bus, the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus without signal from the conductor, resulting the petitioner fell down on the floor from out of the bus, thereby the petitioner sustained fracture on his left leg, immediately he was rushed to the Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore.
4. The petitioner further submits that he is the owner of a Jewellery shop. Due to the said accident he could not continue his jewellery business. The said accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. As such, the respondent Corporation is liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest.
5. The respondent in their counter statement submits that the age, occupation, monthly income, the nature of the alleged injuries sustained by the petitioner, the period of treatment, medical expenditure and disability are not admitted by the respondent. The manner of the accident as alleged by the petitioner is not correct. The true facts are as follows:
On 22.08.2000, at about 14.50 hours, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN32 N0566 was on its scheduled trip from Villupuram to Cuddalore. The bus reached Cuddalore bus stand and the driver of the bus was trying to park the bus in parking area whilst so doing the petitioner, who came in the bus attempted to get down from the moving bus, lost his balance and fell down on the floor from out of the bus, in which he sustained simple injuries. The accident had happened due to the carelessness and negligent of the petitioner. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. As such, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely:
(i) Did the accident happen through whose carelessness?
(ii) Whether the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
7. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8 namely Ex.P1-copy of the FIR, Ex.P2-copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report, Ex.P3-copy of the Accident Register, Ex.P4-copy of the Charge Sheet, Ex.P5-Medical Bill series, Ex.P6-Photos with negative, Ex.P7-Disability Certificate and Ex.P8-Xray.On the respondents side one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked.
8. The petitioner was examined as PW1.In his evidence he adduced stating that he was travelling in the respondents bus on 2.08.2000 at about 5.30 p.m. from Pattambakkam to Cuddalore and after the bus reaching Cuddalore bus stand, the petitioner was trying to alight from the bus and at that time the driver of the bus suddenly moved the vehicle, as such the accident had happened. Regarding the said accident, a case was registered against the driver of the bus, the FIR marked as Ex.p1.Further he adduced evidence that in the said accident, the front wheel of the bus ran over his left leg and he sustained fracture injuries.Ex.P2 Motor Veh
