Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
K. Mahendiran – Respondent
C.M.A. No. 1143 of 2020, C.M.P. No. 7241 of 2020
Decided On : 06-08-2020
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation for Motor Accident - Section 173 - M.C.O.P. No. 7 of 2018 - Sections 279 and 337 of IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, appealed against the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, contending it to be excessive. The accident occurred when the claimant, an ambulance driver, collided with the appellant's bus. The Tribunal found the appellant liable and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,16,000 to the claimant.
Finding of the Court:
The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, considering the claimant's injuries and the principle of 'Preponderance of Probabilities'. It found no fault in the compensation awarded and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Dispute over the compensation amount and liability for the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principle of 'Preponderance of Probabilities' and considered the claimant's injuries and the circumstances of the accident to uphold the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the Tribunal were confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was directed to deposit the awarded amount with accrued interest for the claimant.
JUDGMENT :
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 7 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Uthangarai.
1. The appellant-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Uthangarai in M.C.O.P. No. 7 of 2018.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State Transport Corporation mainly contended that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant and therefore, it is to be set aside.
3. In a case of injury, compensation of Rs. 2,16,000/- was awarded. The injured person is the driver and the income of the injured is Rs. 8,000/- per month. However, the claimant has not produced any proof to show that he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 8,000/-.
4. The Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the injured person has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the backside of State Transport Corporation Bus and thereby caused an accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the liability on the part of the appellant-State Transport Corporation.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimant opposed the contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State Transport Corporation by stating that the Tribunal has considered all these aspects and arrived a conclusion that the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 2,16,000/-. The claimant was a driver and therefore, fixing of Rs. 8,000/- as income per month, cannot be excessive and further, the injured sustained grievous injuries. All these aspects were considered by the Tribunal and the compensation was awarded. Thus, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
6. The accident occurred on 11.03.2015 at about 09.30 p.m. on Salem to Harur Road at ‘A’ Pallipatti Bus Stop. The injured claimant was aged about 31 years at the time of accident.
7. As per the claim petition, the injured was working as an Ambulance Vehicle Driver. The monthly income stated in the claim petition was Rs. 25,000/- per month. ‘A’ Pallipatti Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 43 of 2015 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
8. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties.
9. As far as the negligence aspect is concerned, the Tribunal formed an opinion that as per the oral evidence of PW-1, the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No. TN-29-N-1620.
10. The Tribunal relied on the copy of the FIR (Ex.P-1) and a case has been registered only against the claimant. However, RW-1 deposed that the accident occurred before ‘A’ Pallipatti Police Station and after the accident, the Ambulance Driver was taken to the Hospital and he lodged a complaint against the claimant, who sustained injuries and taken to the Hospital. Thus, the driver of the State Transport Corporation Bus had lodged a complaint against the claimant. The claimant sustained grievous injuries and had taken to Hospital immediately for treatment. Thus, there was no opportunity for the claimant or any other person to give a complaint against the driver of the State Transport Corporation Bus. Thus, the Tribunal formed an opinion that such a statement made by the driver of the State Transport Corporation Bus, cannot be taken into account for the purpose of deciding the negligence aspect.
11. ‘A’ Pallipatti Police Station registered a case in Ex.P-1 FIR against the claimant. Immediately after the acc
AI
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
