Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
A. Abdul Hadi and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
M. Jaganathan
Vs.
Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.
A.A.O. No. 148 of 1994
Decided On: 03.09.1997
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - NEGLIGENCE - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - AMPUTATION OF LEFT LEG - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - NO FAULT LIABILITY - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 166.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, who sustained amputation of his left leg above the knee in a motor vehicle accident, filed a claim for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 12,000 only on the basis of no-fault liability, finding that the appellant was solely negligent.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in finding the appellant solely negligent. It found that the bus crew was negligent in allowing passengers to alight at a place that was not a bus stop, especially since the bus had stopped due to a traffic jam. The court also found that the conductor had asked passengers to alight at that location.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was solely negligent in causing the accident. 2. Whether the bus crew was negligent in allowing passengers to alight at a place that was not a bus stop. 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of earning power despite continuing to receive his usual salary.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant was not solely negligent, as the bus crew was also negligent in allowing passengers to alight at a place that was not a bus stop, especially since the bus had stopped due to a traffic jam. 2. The court relied on several precedents holding that bus drivers and conductors have a duty of care for the safety of passengers and must take precautions to ensure that passengers do not suffer injuries while boarding or alighting from the bus. 3. The court held that the appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of earning power, despite continuing to receive his usual salary, as his future earning capacity had been affected by the amputation of his leg.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal in part, awarding the appellant compensation of Rs. 4,50,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition.
A. Abdul Hadi, J.
1. The claimant, who is the injured in the motor accident that took place on 21.6.1990 is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal against the compensation of Rs. 12,000 granted by the Tribunal only on the basis of no fault liability. The claim was for Rs. 6,00,000.
2. The injury sustained by the appellant has resulted in the amputation of his left leg above the knee. The injury was sustained when he was getting down from the respondent's bus from the front entrance of the bus and at a place, which was not a bus stop for the said bus. The bus was proceeding from the Flower Bazaar Police Station towards Parrys Corner in George Town, Madras. -A. According to the claimant, there was a traffic jam due to some procession at the abovesaid place and the bus stopped as a consequence at the abovesaid place and the conductor himself asked the passengers, who wanted to get down at the next bus stop, viz., Parrys Corner to get down at the said place itself. Further, according to the claimant, pursuant to the said suggestion of the conductor, just like certain other passengers including PW 2, he also got down towards the end, but, even before he could get down completely, the driver moved the bus and that is why he (injured) fell down and the left front wheel of the bus ran over him and, therefore, when he was subsequently taken to the hospital, his leg had to be amputated.
3. On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the bus did not stop at the above said place, but was only moving slowly and the conductor did not ask the passengers to get down at that place and et the injured got down from the moving bus at that place, which was not a bus stop with reference to the said bus. So, the contention of the respondent Corporation is that the claimant alone was negligent and not the bus driver.
4. On the above negligence aspect, the Tribunal below has found that the claimant alone was negligent and not the driver of the bus. In this regard, the relevant observations of the Tribunal below are as follows:
(Omitted as in vernacular)
5. While holding so, the court below did not go into the question of quantum of compensation as claimed by the claimant, but only granted the no fault liability compensation of Rs. 12,000.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the place at which the injured got down was not a bus stop for the abovesaid bus in question, the said appellant and certain other passengers including PW 2 got down from the bus at that place only because the bus stopped there due to traffic jam and the conductor asked the passengers, who wanted to get down at the next bus stop, to get down at the said place itself. In this connection, to contend that in such a situation, there was no negligence on the part of the injured and that the negligence was only on the part of the driver of the bus, learned Counsel for the appellant relies on the decision in Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Trans. Corporation Ltd. v. N. Hussain Mohideen Southern Motors v. C. Sivajothiammal 1982 ACJ (Supp) 85 (Madras); N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd, v. M. Karumai Ammal 1980 ACJ 435 (SC); Venkataswami Motor Service v. C.K. Chinnaswamy 1989 ACJ 371; Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Keshavlal Somnath Panchal 1982 ACJ (Supp) 377 (Gujarat); and Sydney Victor v. Janab S. Kadar Sheriff 1974 ACJ 318 (Madras). He also pointed out that in the first information report, Exh. P-5 which was recorded within ten minutes of the accident on the same day (21.6.1990), the complaint given is that the bus stopped at the abovesaid place and then only the passengers including the injured got down. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that there could be no contributory negligence also on the part of the injured. In this regard, he relies on two of the above referred decisions, viz., Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Keshavlal Somnath Panchal (supra) and Sydney Victor v. Janab S. Kadar Sheriff (supra).
7. Then, coming to t
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
