Madras High Court
Managing Director vs Boopalan on 6 September, 2018
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 06.09.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.NO.3305 OF 2009 &
MP.NO.1 OF 2009
Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation Ltd.,
Coimbatore Division I
37, Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore
.. Appellant
Vs
1. Boopalan
2. A.Samiappan
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 ofthe Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decreetal order dated
18.8.2008 passed in MCOP.No.1303 of 2006 by the learned Additional
District Judge, Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.
For appellant : Mr.S.S. Swaminathan
For Respondent : Mr. M.Selvam for R1
R2-Given up
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the Award dated 18.8.2008 passed by the Motor http://www.judis.nic.in 2 Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri in MCOP.No.1303 of 2006.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows;
(i) The first respondent sustained injuries as a result of an accident occured on 18.3.2005 caused by the collision of a bus bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-0027 with a rig vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-01-MR/1888 which came from the opposite direction. The bus bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-0027 is owned by the appellant Transport Corporation and the rig vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-01-MR/1888 is owned by the 2nd respondent owner.
(ii) The 1st respondent preferred a claim before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal seeking a comepnsation of Rs.12,30,000/- whichwas restrictedto Rs.3 lakhs.
(iii) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by its Awarddated 18.8.2008 directed the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent to jointly and severally to pay the 1st respondent a sum of Rs.69,866/- together with interest at tht erate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3. Aggrieved by the Award dated 18.8.2008 passed in MCOP.No.1303 of 2006 by the tribunal, the instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant Transport Corporation.
4. Heard Mr.S.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Selvam, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
5.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the primary ground for challenge in the instant appeal is that the tribunal has erroneously awarded excessive compensation to the 1st respondent not commensurate with the actual loss suffered by him, as a resultof the injuries caused by the accident. The 1 st respondent sustained injuries on his eye resulting in loss of his eye sight.
6. The 1st respondent before the tirbunal has filed the wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P.2 and disability certificate which is marked as Ex.P.4 and he has also filed medical bills to prove that he had incurred expenditure for medical treatment. The 1 st respondent's disability was assessed by the tribunal at 30% permanent disability eventhough as per the disability certificate, the disability was assessed at 40%. The 1st respondent was aged 37 years at the time of the accident and was a Mason by profession. The tribunal has also assessed his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
7. The tribunal has concluded the disability compensation at Rs.60,000/- for 30% disability at Rs.2000/- per percentage of disability. The tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for loss of transportation, Rs.1000/-towards compensation for extra nourishment and Rs.1866/- towards compensation for medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering,in all put together, the tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.69,866/- in favour of the 1st respondent.
8. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the 1st respondent as a result of the accident, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is a just compensation.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire award amount has been deposited by the appellant before the tribunal. Since the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent have been directed to jointly or severally pay the award amount to 1 st respondent, the appellant seeks permission of this Court to recover the 50% of the award amount from the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the rig vehicle which is also a joint tort feaser. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
10. The request of the appellant is acceded by this Court. Accordingly, this Court permits the appellant to recover 50% of the Award amount from the 2nd respondent in accordance with law.
11. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of confirming the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.1303 dated 18.8.2008. No costs.
06.09.2018 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order msr To
1. The Additional District Judge, Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
msr http://www.judis.nic.in 6 CMA.No.3305 of 2009 06.09.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in