Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN & G. CHOCKALINGAM, JJ.
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Salem
Versus
S. Thenmozhi
C.M.A. No. 3705 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided on: 19-09-2014
Constitution of India, 1950 - Motor Accidents Claims - Rash and negligent manner – Claim of compensation - It was averred by respondent/claimant before Tribunal that a private bus bearing Registration in which he was travelling as a passenger stopped at extreme left side of High Road near Coot Road, District to carry out puncture work - At that time appellant/Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against stationed bus on its right rear portion thereby resulted in an accident - Respondent/claimant who was sitting at rear corner seat of private bus sustained crush injury on her spinal cord legs and hips and was immediately taken to nearby hospital for treatment - Alleging that driver of appellant Transport Corporation was responsible for accident respondent/claimant sought a sum as compensation from appellant Transport Corporation - Resisting claim of respondent/claimant appellant/Transport Corporation made a statement before Tribunal to effect that there was no rashness and negligence on part of driver of their Transport Corporation and that he drove bus slowly carefully and cautiously and accident had occurred only due to negligence of driver of private bus which was suddenly stopped by its driver on highway road without any indication – Thus appellant/Transport Corporation denied its liability to pay compensation and sought dismissal of claim petition – Held, Loss of Amenities Bearing in mind the ratio laid down by Hobble Supreme Court in case reported to effect that provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that award must be just which means that compensation should to extent possible fully and adequately restore claimant to position prior to accident that object of awarding damages is to make good loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so in a fair reasonable and equitable manner that court or Tribunal shall have to assess damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy though some conjecture with reference to nature of disability and its consequences is inevitable that a person is not only to be compensated for physical injury but also for loss which he suffered as a result of such injury and that this means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for injuries and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned Tribunal in present case awarded for loss of amenities which does not call for any interference by this Court and same is confirmed - Loss of Longevity of Life & Loss of Marital Status amount awarded under head Loss of Longevity in court opinion is uncalled for in view of certain award of amount under non-pecuniary damages in this case - Therefore while deleting sum of awarded under head loss of longevity of life sum of awarded under head Loss of Marital Status is upheld - Pain and Suffering It cannot be disputed that because of accident respondent/claimant who is a Research Engineer by profession has become paraplegic on account of injuries sustained by her - It is really difficult in this background to assess exact amount of compensation for pain and agony suffered by claimant and for having become a lifelong handicapped - No amount of compensation can restore physical frame of claimant - That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident object is to compensate such injury so far as money can compensate because it is impossible to equate human sufferings or personal deprivations with money - Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame - Keeping same in mind a sum awarded under this head is confirmed - Petition is allowed
V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. Heard Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation and Mr.A.A.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.1064 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/V Small Causes Court, Chennai, the State Transport Corporation, Salem is before this Court by way of this appeal.
3. It was averred by the respondent/claimant before the Tribunal that on 21.07.2008, at about 2:15 hours, a private bus bearing Registration No.KA-04-AA-9199, in which he was travelling as a passenger from Bangalore to Chennai, stopped at the extreme left side of the Bangalore High Road near Valland Ramam Coot Road, Pallikonda, Vellore District, to carry out puncture work. At that time, the appellant/Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1948, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the stationed bus on its right rear portion, thereby resulted in an accident. The respondent/claimant, who was sitting at the rear corner seat of the private bus, sustained crush injury on her spinal cord, legs and hips and was immediately taken to the nearby hospital for treatment. Alleging that the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation was responsible for the accident, the respondent/claimant sought a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation from the appellant Transport Corporation.
4. Resisting the claim of the respondent/claimant, the appellant/Transport Corporation made a statement before the Tribunal to the effect that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of their Transport Corporation and that he drove the bus slowly, carefully and cautiously and the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the private bus, which was suddenly stopped by its driver on the highway road without any indication. Thus, the appellant/Transport Corporation denied its liability to pay compensation and sought dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondent/claimant, three witnesses were examined and as many as 43 exhibits were marked. The respondent/claimant was examined as P.W.1, one Dr.N.Saichandran was examined as P.W.2 and one Mr.Kasi was examined as P.W.3. On behalf of the appellant/Transport Corporation, one Mr.C.Madhappa, driver of the appellate Transport Corporation Bus was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 – copy of Rough Sketch was marked.
6. On appreciation of the materials before it, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.57,90,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit and the break-up details of the award are as under:
S.No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal
1. Loss of Earning Capacity (Rs.7,220 x 12 x 18) Rs. 15,59,520.00
2. Loss of earning during the treatment period Rs.12,70,720.00
3. Transportation to Hospital Rs.1,20,000.00
4. Extra Nourishment Rs.1,00,000.00
5. Damage to Clothes Rs.1,000.00
6. Medical Expenses Rs.8,73,464.00
7. Future Medical Expenses Rs.10,00,000.00
8. Attender Charges Rs. 1,50,000.00
9. Purchase of Electric Wheel Chair Rs. 1,08,000.00
10. Loss of Child in the Womb Rs. 2,00,000.00
11. Loss of Amenities Rs. 1,00,000.00
12. Loss of Longevity of Life Rs. 1,00,000.00
13. Loss of Marital Status Rs. 1,00,000.00
14. Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,00,000.00
Total Rs.57,84,314.00
Rounded off to Rs.57,90,000.00
7. Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation would contend that unmindful of the multiplier adopted in Sarla Verma's case, derivation of multiplier as 18 instead of 17 by the Tribunal is against the settled principles of law, as the claimant was aged 30 years at the time of accident. He would further contend that the compensation awarded under the hea
SupremeToday
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
