Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. KANNAMMAL, J.
M. Kumar and Another – Appellants
Versus
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited – Respondent
C.M.A. Nos. 3164 of 2011, 3299 of 2017, C.M.P. No. 20833 of 2017
Decided On : 06-09-2021
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 – Accident – Claim of Compensation - Appeals arise out of the same accident and same award and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment - Parties are referred to as per their respective ranks in C.M.A for the sake of convenience - Appellant filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of amount as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on against the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation - According to the appellant, on at about hours, while he was travelling as passenger in the bus bearing Registration belonging to 1st respondent-Transport Corporation at Thenmeli, Kancheepuram District, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering public safety, suddenly turned the bus to the right side and hit the Tanker Lorry bearing Registration which was coming in the opposite direction and caused the accident. In the accident, the appellant sustained Grade III B Shattered Right Elbow, Fracture SDH m/3 extension fixation, Segmental fracture shaft of Humerus, communited Fracture distal humerus, communited of PNX end Ulna, Radial Pulse, Finger armext, Thumbext and multiple injuries all over the body. He was admitted at Government General Hospital, Chennai on 01.05.2004 and discharged on 04.06.2004 and hastaken treatment till filing of the claim petition – Held, It is the further claim of the appellant in the claim petition that at the time of accident, he was aged 27 years, working as Production Assistant at PL Agro Technoligies Limited, Madurantagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District and was earning a sum of amount per month. To prove the avocation and income, the appellant produced Ex.P7/Appointment Order, Ex.P8/Identity Card, Ex.P9/Salary Slip and Ex.P10/Service Certificate. The appellant also produced Ex.P11/Relieving Order to show that after the accident, he was relieved from the service on the ground of injury. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries, disability, evidence of PW-2 Doctor and the nature of work done by the appellant, adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation for 40% loss of earning capacity and the same is proper. PW-2 Doctor in his evidence has deposed that the right hand of the appellant is completely functionless and the Tribunal has not granted any enhancement towards future prospects. The appellant was aged 27 years at the time of accident - Appeals are partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
S. KANNAMMAL, J.
Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2011 made in M.C.O.P. No. 5820 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai.
1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against the award of the Tribunal dated 24.02.2011 made in M.C.O.P. No. 5820 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and same award and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to as per their respective ranks in C.M.A. No. 3164 of 2011 for the sake of convenience.
3. The appellant filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 01.05.2004 against the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation.
4. According to the appellant, on 01.05.2004 at about 15.50 hours, while he was travelling as passenger in the bus bearing Registration No. TN-21-N-0349 belonging to 1st respondent-Transport Corporation at Thenmeli, Kancheepuram District, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering public safety, suddenly turned the bus to the right side and hit the Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No. TCF 2200, which was coming in the opposite direction and caused the accident. In the accident, the appellant sustained Grade III B Shattered Right Elbow, Fracture SDH m/3 extension fixation, Segmental fracture shaft of Humerus, communited Fracture distal humerus, communited of PNX end Ulna, Radial Pulse, Finger armext, Thumbext and multiple injuries all over the body. He was admitted at Government General Hospital, Chennai on 01.05.2004 and discharged on 04.06.2004 and hastaken treatment till filing of the claim petition. Therefore, he filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him against the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation.
5. The 1st respondent-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the appellant. The 1st respondent denied the manner of accident as alleged by the appellant. According to 1st respondent, on 01.05.2004, the driver of the bus was driving the same with due care and caution by observing the traffic rules from Mahapalipuram to Chengelpet. When the bus was nearing Nemani Curve Road, the driver of the bus saw a Water Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No. TCF 2200, which was coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. On seeing the lorry, the driver of the bus swerved the bus to the left side. But, the driver of the lorry dashed on the right side of the bus and caused the accident. Due to this accident, the appellant sustained injuries. Therefore, there is 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 driver of the lorry. Immediately after the accident, the driver of the bus gave a complaint to the Police against the driver of the lorry and based on the said complaint, F.I.R. is also registered against the driver of the lorry in Crime No. 194 of 2004. This shows that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to 1st respondent-Transport Corporation. The driver, owner and insurer of the tanker lorry have to be impleaded as necessary parties in the claim petition. The appellant has filed the present claim petition against the 1st respondent- Transport Corporation only with an intention to grab money from the Transport Corporation. The appellant has to prove that at the time of accident, he was travelling as passenger in the bus. The 1st respondent-Transport Corporation denied the age,
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
