BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, G. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, District – Appellant
Versus
D. Varatharajan & Another – Respondent
C.M.A.(MD) Nos. 653, 654 of 2020 & C.M.P.(MD) Nos. 6591 of 2020 & 768 of 2021
Decided on : 23-12-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 163-A(1) - Schedule II - The court discussed the liability of the Insurance Company for compensation, the principle of pay and recovery, and the structured formula for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, a bus driver, sustained injuries in a road accident and filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which was challenged by the Insurance Company and the vehicle owner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in appreciating the claim petition and applying the structured formula for compensation. It held that the claimant, being a driver by profession, was entitled to compensation under Section 163-A(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues: The issues included the liability of the Insurance Company, the claimant's status as an unauthorized passenger, and the application of the structured formula for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimant, as an employee under the bus owner, was not an unauthorized passenger and was entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It also emphasized the need for fair and adequate compensation based on the claimant's profession and future prospects.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal by the Insurance Company, modifying the compensation amount, and allowed the appeal by the vehicle owner, setting aside the portion of the award related to pay and recovery.
JUDGMENT :-
DR. G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 19.02.2016, passed in M.C.O.P.No.171 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub Judge, Sivakasi.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 19.02.2016, passed in M.C.O.P.No.171 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub Judge, Sivakasi.)
1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sivakasi, in M.C.O.P.No.171 of 2000, dated 19.02.2016.
2. The Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.(MD)No.653 of 2020 challenging the quantum of compensation. Whereas, the owner of the offending vehicle has preferred C.M.A.(MD)No.654 of 2020, challenging the liability fastened on him following the principle of pay and recovery.
3. The brief facts leading to the award under challenge are as below:-
(i) On 23.02.2000 at 18.30 hours, D.Varatharajan, the claimant, driver by profession, while returning home after his duty hours, in the bus bearing Registration No.TDR-7079 was standing near the stairs of the front side entrance of the bus. Due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, on Sivakasi – Sattur main road, near Muthalnaickenpatti Deviatory, the claimant slipped down from the bus and sustained head injury and multiple injuries all over his body. He was rushed to the Government Hospital, Sattur, where he was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. He took treatment for 43 days as inpatient and thereafter, discharged on 05.04.2000 with a direction to undergo Physiotherapy daily.
(ii) A criminal case in Crime No.73 of 2000 was registered against the bus driver for his rash and negligent driving. Alleging that due to the injury sustained in the road accident, he has become semi-paralyzed, unable to carry on his day-today work without assistance and he is not able to write or continue his occupation as bus driver, therefore, the accident has caused immeasurable and incalculable loss. Hence, a claim petition restricted to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has been filed by the claimant against the insurer of the offending bus and owner of the bus.
4. Before the Tribunal, the F.I.R., wound certificate, discharge summary and salary certificates were relied by the claimant. On the side of the respondents, to show that the claimant was travelling without purchasing ticket, the bill book copy and trip sheets were marked. The claimant was examined as P.W.1. On behalf of the respondents, three witnesses were examined.
5. The Tribunal after considering the claim petition, counter statement filed by the Insurance Company and documents, held that the injury sustained by the claimant, has caused him 75% permanent disability. The accident has occurred while the claimant was travelling near the footboard due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Since the claimant travelled without purchasing ticket, the plea of the Insurance Company that they are not liable to compensate the unauthorized passengers was accepted and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover it from the bus owner. Regarding quantum, the Tribunal taking note of the salary certificate [Ex.P.6], which discloses that the claimant was paid Rs.112/- per day as wage, arrived at his monthly income as Rs.2,800/- and fixed Rs.5,37,600/- as loss of income from the date of accident till the date of award. In addition, considering the disability certificate [Ex.P.5], fixed his disability at 75% and applying multiplier 16', for loss of future income, awarded Rs.4,03,200/-. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/-. Towards nutritious food and transport, it has awarded Rs.5,000/- each. In addition, for 75% disability, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,25,000/- i.e., Rs.3,000
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.