Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4875
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, R. POORNIMA, JJ.
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
A. Sarojini – Respondent
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.40 of 2025 & 553 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.498 and 9980 of 2025
Decided On : 28-08-2025
Mr. A.V.B. Krishnakanth, Mr. N. Sudhagar Nagaraj.
Negligence by the bus driver established, leading to compensation modification to Rs.43,90,820 based on assessed disability.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeals against the order and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding quantum and negligence - The Tribunal awarded Rs.57,36,580/- as compensation for injuries sustained due to the negligent act of the respondent's bus driver. The appellant contends that the driver of the bus was not negligent and the accident was caused due to the rash driving of the two-wheeler rider. (Paras 6-34)
(B) Compensation calculation - It was established that the driver of the government bus had encroached upon the opposite lane and caused the accident. The trial court's assessment of disability at 80% was upheld and adopted the multiplier method for compensation calculation. The court further determined the total compensation amount as Rs.43,90,820/- with 7.5% interest. (Paras 32-36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was riding as a pillion on a two-wheeler that collided with the respondent Corporation’s bus, resulting in grievous injuries. The tribunal awarded compensation based on the petitioner's monthly income and disability assessment, which were disputed by the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The driver of the Corporation bus was deemed solely responsible for the accident and claims on appeal by the appellant for contributory negligence were rejected.
Issues: The main issues revolved around liability for the accident and the adequacy of the compensation awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the findings of the tribunal regarding negligence on part of the bus driver and upheld the compensation amount based on the assessed disability, stressing the need for proper evidence of income to justify claims.
Result: The appeals were partly allowed and the compensation was modified to Rs.43,90,820/-.
-
-
JUDGMENT :
R. POORNIMA, J.
The Appellant/Respondent/Transport Corporation has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.40 of 2025 against the fair order and decreetal order dated 04.12.2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.09 of 2023 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirapalli, with regard to challenge the Quantum and fixing of Negligence.
2. The Appellant/Petitioner has filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.553 of 2024 against the fair order and decreetal order dated 04.12.2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.09 of 2023 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirapalli, for enhancement of compensation.
3. Brief facts of the petition filed by the claimants before the Tribunal are as follows:
a) On 17.07.2022 at about 10.30 a.m. when the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 45 BE 7004 which was being driven by one Praveenkumar in Trichy to Karur Main Road near Thiruchendhurai Vellalar Street Pirivu Road from east to west direction with due care and caution, at that time, a Government Bus bearing Registration No.TN 55 N 0930 belonging to the Respondent Corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a hectic speed came from the opposite direction dashed against the two-wheeler and caused the accident. Due to the sudden impact of the accident, the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body including a head injury and there was a bone fracture in the right leg.
-
b) After the accident, the petitioner was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Trichy and admitted as an inpatient from 17.07.2022 to 29.09.2022 and thereafter taken treatment in a private hospital and she has spent a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses.
c) At the time of the accident, the petitioner was working in a Textile Shop at Lalgudi and was earning Rs 15,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner is unable to lift any weight and has lost her hand grip. She is also unable to sit, stand, run, walk and squat and is incapable of performing her work as she did before. Moreover, she has a permanent disability, resulting in loss of income and employment besides being subjected to great mental agony and hardship.
d) Hence, this petitioner has filed a claim petition for compensation of a sum of Rs 20,00,000/-.
-
e) In respect of the accident, Jeeyapuram Police had registered a case in Crime No.191 of 2022 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC as against the driver of the Respondent's bus. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Government bus by its driver. The Respondent's bus belongs to the State-owned Corporation and hence the Respondent, being the owner of the vehicle is solely liable to pay compensation.
4. Brief averments contained in the counter filed by the respondent are as follows :
i) The petition is unsustainable both in law and on facts. The accident did not happen in the manner as set out in the claim petition. In fact, on 17.07.2022 at about 10.30 am, the Respondent's bus driver drove the bus near Jeeyapuram with all care and caution, at that time, a two- wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 45 BE 7004 ridden by its driver along with one pillion rider drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without following any road rules. The rider while conversing with the pillion rider and coming from the opposite direction and dashed against the right corner of the bus and caused the accident.
-
ii) The allegation about age, occupation, Income, nature of injuries, period of treatment, permanent disability and incurring of expenses all are specifically denied as false. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the two-wheeler's rider and not by the Respondent's driver and the rider of the two-wheeler has also contributed to the alleged accident and hence the claim petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5
