BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. THARANI, J.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakonam Limited, through its Managing Director, Trichy – Appellant
Versus
K. Karthikeyan – Respondent
C.M.A. (MD) No. 1202 of 2018
Decided On : 25-04-2023
Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Accident Claims - Section 173 - Compensation - [ACCIDENT] - [MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Section 173] - The court awarded compensation to the claimant for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The court found the bus driver to be negligent and held the claimant partially liable due to contributory negligence. The court reduced the compensation amount due to contributory negligence and directed the appellant to deposit the revised compensation amount with interest.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained severe injuries in a bus accident and claimed compensation for permanent disability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the bus driver to be negligent and held the claimant partially liable due to contributory negligence. The court reduced the compensation amount due to contributory negligence and directed the appellant to deposit the revised compensation amount with interest.
Issues: Negligence of the bus driver, contributory negligence of the claimant, calculation of compensation amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the bus driver and found the claimant partially liable due to contributory negligence, leading to a reduction in the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the compensation amount and directing the appellant to deposit the revised amount with interest.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2014, dated 14.08.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional Sub Court, Karur.)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award, made in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2014, dated 14.08.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Additional Sub Court, Karur. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the respondents 2 & 3 herein are the respondents 2 & 3 in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.
2. A Brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2014, is as follows:
On 29.09.2014, at about 01.15 pm, when the petitioner was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-3198, the bus driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he try to overtake a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-45-H-3001 that was proceeding infront of the bus and hit against the lorry and the right elbow of the petitioner rubbed against the lorry and the right hand was severed and it fell down. The petitioner was admitted in Karur Amaravathi Hospital. After getting first aid, he was admitted in Karur Raj Ortho Hospital. The right hand was amputated from the shoulder. The petitioner was aged about 21 years and he was earning Rs.15,000/- by working as a machine operator in a private institution. He sustained 100% permanent disability. He claim a sum of Rs.50,000,000/- as compensation.
3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2014, is as follows:-
The manner of accident as narrated in the petition is denied. When the bus driver drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner, keeping the left side of the road, a lorry came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, along the wrong side of the road. Though the bus driver try to avoid the accident, it was the lorry that dashed against the bus. The accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. The petitoner has to prove his injuries, disability, period of treatment and medical expenses. Rate of interest claimed in the petition is excessive. The claim is excessive.
4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2014, is as follows:-
The driver of the lorry is not responsible for the accident, even as per the narration in the claim petition, it was the bus driver, who try to overtake a lorry that came to the right side of the road and hit against the opposite lorry and the bus driver is the tort feaser. Criminal case was lodged only against the bus driver. The owner of the bus and the driver are liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The manner of accident, age, professsion, income of the petitioner are all denied.
5. Two (2) witnesses were examined, 10 documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. One (1) witness was examined and 1 document was marked on the side of the first respondent. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the third respondent. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.32,34,044/- as compensation to be paid by the first respondent.
6. Against the award, the first respondent - appellant has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-
The Tribunal is wrong in holding that the driver of the appellant was solely responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has failed to fix the entire negligence on the driver of the lorry. The award is excessive. The Tribunal has fixed the disability as 90%, which is high. P.W.2-Doctor had not treated the injured, but, he assessed the disability as 90%, which is unsustainable. Tribunal has fixed the functional disability as 100%, without any basis. The Tribunal fixed the income as Rs.9,000/- per month. The Tribunal has added 50% toward
The court considered the principles of negligence and contributory negligence in determining the compensation amount for the claimant's injuries.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of liability and compensation in a motor vehicle accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Tribunal to award reasonable and just compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the limitations on claimi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of negligence, disability, and loss of income in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The main legal point established is the application of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, in determining compensation for accident-related injuries, including the assessment of disability, loss of income, ....
The court applied the multiplier method and considered the percentage of disability to calculate the compensation amount, highlighting the principles established in the 2021-1-TNMAC-404(SC) judgment.
The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding the first respondent solely liable for the accident and upholding the compensation awarded as just and reasonable.
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.