SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1086

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. Velumani, J.
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
D.Nagaraj - Respondent
C.M.A.No.1324 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.6688 of 2021
Decided On : 31-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar

Headnote:

Motor vehicle - Award - Compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident - Sustained grievous injuries and fractures all over body and head - Motorcycle bearing Registration No. from East to West on the extreme left side of the Anguchettypalayam – Salem Main Road, near SVM Pawn Broker shop, driver of bearing Registration No.TN belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, dashed against motorcycle driven by the respondent and caused the accident - Respondent sustained grievous injuries and fractures all over the body and head. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to Government Hospital, Panruti for first aid treatment and then referred to PIMS Hospital, Pondicherry. Thereafter he was shifted to Vallivilas Hospital, Cuddalore, where he underwent surgery to fix steel plate in his zygomatic bone and right shoulder bone and continued his treatment till filing of the claim petition. Therefore, he filed the said claim petition claiming a sum compensation for the injuries sustained by him against the appellant-Transport Corporation – Held, PW.1 and marked Ex.C1/disability certificate. The Medical Board examined the respondent and certified that the respondent suffered 50% disability and issued Ex.C1/disability certificate to that effect. It is the further case of the respondent that at the time of accident, he was an Agriculturist aged 25 years and was earning a sum of per month. As per Ex.P2/Accident Register, respondent was aged 27 years at the time of accident - He has not filed any document to prove the avocation and income - Awarded a sum of compensation towards loss of earning capacity and the same is proper - Immediately after the accident, the respondent was taken to Government Hospital, Panruti for first aid treatment and then referred to PIMS Hospital, Pondicherry, where he has taken treatment as inpatient - Appeal is dismissed

JUDGMENT :

The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award dated 24.01.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.3806 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore.

3. The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.3806 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore. The respondent filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 03.10.2015.

4. According to respondent, on 03.10.2015 at about 11.20 A.M., while he was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 31 AE 6365 from East to West on the extreme left side of the Anguchettypalayam – Salem Main Road, near SVM Pawn Broker shop, the driver of the bearing Registration No.TN 23 N 2216 belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle driven by the respondent and caused the accident. In the accident, the respondent sustained grievous injuries and fractures all over the body and head. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to Government Hospital, Panruti for first aid treatment and then referred to PIMS Hospital, Pondicherry. Thereafter he was shifted to Vallivilas Hospital, Cuddalore, where he underwent surgery to fix steel plate in his zygomatic bone and right shoulder bone and continued his treatment till filing of the claim petition. Therefore, he filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him against the appellant-Transport Corporation.

5. The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondent. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondent. According to the appellant, while the driver of the bus belonging to appellant was driving the same at a moderate speed by observing the traffic rules from Vellore to Chidambaram, near SVM Pawn Broker shop at Anguchettypalayam, the respondent who was riding the motorcycle from Branch road to Main Road on seeing the bus, applied sudden brake and fell down on the road and sustained injuries. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent. The respondent was not wearing helmet at the time of accident and also he was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. The appellant-Transport Corporation denied the age, avocation, income, nature of injuries, disability and period of treatment taken by the respondent. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by him is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and 6 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The appellant-Transport Corporation examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and no document was marked. The disability certificate of the respondent was marked as Ex.C1.

7. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.9,88,800/- as compensation to the respondent.

8. To set aside the award dated 24.01.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.3806 of 2015, the appellant-Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought not to have held that mere registering of F.I.R. is more enough for fixing negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal erroneously fixed negligence on the driver of the bus merely relying o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top