High Court · 2024

CMA.No.1373 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21.10.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHAC.M.A.No.1373 of 2023 M. Anandhakumar.... Appellant vs.1. S.P. Manickam2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Dare House, 2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001.3. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem-7. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 18.08.2022 in M.C.O.P.505/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri.For Appellant: Mr. I. SiddiqFor R1 : Ms.S.KiruthikaFor R2 : Mr.J. Michael VisuvasamFor R3: Mr. D. Nitin1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023J U D G M E N TThe appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.505/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri, and he filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 17.06.2016.2. The case of the claimant is that on 17.06.2016, he was driving a bus bearing Registration number TN-30-N-117, belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, on Thiruvannamalai-Hosur Road and at about 2.30 a.m., a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52-F-9127, belonging to the first respondent, was going ahead of him. Since the driver of the lorry suddenly applied brake in the middle of the road, the claimant rammed the lorry and sustained injuries.2.1. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52-F-9127 was 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023the cause of the accident and that since the said lorry was insured with the second respondent, the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him. 3. In the Tribunal the owner of the lorry remained absent and was set ex parte. The second and third respondents contested the claim petition by filing their counter.4. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the claimant in the ratio 40:60 and directed the second respondent Insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.1,28,900/- (40% of the total compensation of Rs.3,22,243/-) to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 5. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 20236. Heard Mr. I. Siddiq, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ms. S. Kiruthika, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr.J. Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Mr. D. Nitin, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 7. Mr. I. Siddiq, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that though the driver of the lorry suddenly applied brake in the middle of the road, the Tribunal had wrongly fastened negligence on the part of the claimant to the extent of 60%. He also contended that the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation to the claimant and therefore, prayed for enhancement of the same. 8. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents contended that the Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, had awarded just compensation and therefore the same need not be disturbed in the present appeal. 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023Negligence9. It is seen from the records that the accident took place on the National Highways and the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52-F-9127 was going ahead of the bus driven by the claimant. The driver of the bus should have maintained a minimum distance from the lorry as per the traffic rules. Had the claimant followed the traffic rules, he could have averted the accident. He had infact hit the lorry from behind as a result of which he sustained injuries. Considering the manner of accident, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the claimant in the ratio 40:60 and therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same.Quantum9.1. The Medical Board attached to Krishnagiri Head Quarters Hospital assessed the partial permanent disability of the claimant as 40%. However, the Tribunal had reduced it to 35% without any basis. Therefore, the partial permanent disability of the claimant is taken up as 40% as assessed by the Medical Board. Since there is no functional disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,57,500/- towards partial 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023permanent disability by fixing a sum of Rs.4,500/- per percentage of disability. Considering the age of the claimant and the year of accident, a sum of Rs.5,000/- per percentage of disability is awarded. Hence, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (40x5000) is awarded towards partial permanent disability. 9.2. The following tabular column would show the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the amount awarded by this Court under various heads. S.No.DescriptionAmount awarded by Tribunal (Rs.)Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.)1.Partial permanent disability1,57,500/-(35x4500)2,00,000/-(40x5000)2.Medical expenses43,343/-43,343/-3.Loss of income45,000/-45,000/-4.Pain and sufferings30,000/-30,000/-5.Transportation expenses17,400/-17,400/-6.Extra nourishment3,000/-3,000/-7.Damages to the clothes1,000/-1,000/-6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023S.No.DescriptionAmount awarded by Tribunal (Rs.)Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.)8.Attender charges15,000/-15,000/-9.Loss of amenities10,000/-10,000/-Total3,22,243/-3,64,743/-Less:60% contributory negligence1,93,346/-2,18,846/-Compensation awarded1,28,897/-Rounded off to1,28,900/-1,45,897/-9.3. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,45,897/- that would carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.10. In the result,i.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.ii.The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,45,897/- (40% of the total compensation amount of Rs.3,64,743/-).7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023iii.The appellant / claimant is directed to pay court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if any, and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after receipt of Court fee.iv.The second Respondent, the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.1,45,897/- (less the amount already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.505/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order/uploading of this order.v.On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same, after following due process of law. 21.10.2024Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking orderbga8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023To1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri.2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Dare House, 2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001.3. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem-7. 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023R.HEMALATHA, J.bgaC.M.A.No.1373 of 2023 21.10.202410/10

CMA.No.1373 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21.10.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHAC.M.A.No.1373 of 2023 M. Anandhakumar.... Appellant vs.1. S.P. Manickam2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Dare House, 2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001.3. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem-7. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 18.08.2022 in M.C.O.P.505/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri.For Appellant: Mr. I. SiddiqFor R1 : Ms.S.KiruthikaFor R2 : Mr.J. Michael VisuvasamFor R3: Mr. D. Nitin1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023J U D G M E N TThe appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.505/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri, and he filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 17.06.2016.2. The case of the claimant is that on 17.06.2016, he was driving a bus bearing Registration number TN-30-N-117, belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, on Thiruvannamalai-Hosur Road and at about 2.30 a.m., a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52-F-9127, belonging to the first respondent, was going ahead of him. Since the driver of the lorry suddenly applied brake in the middle of the road, the claimant rammed the lorry and sustained injuries.2.1. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52-F-9127 was 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023the cause of the accident and that since the said lorry was insured with the second respondent, the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him. 3. In the Tribunal the owner of the lorry remained absent and was set ex parte. The second and third respondents contested the claim petition by filing their counter.4. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the claimant in the ratio 40:60 and directed the second respondent Insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.1,28,900/- (40% of the total compensation of Rs.3,22,243/-) to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 5. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 20236. Heard Mr. I. Siddiq, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ms. S. Kiruthika, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr.J. Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Mr. D. Nitin, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 7. Mr. I. Siddiq, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that though the driver of the lorry suddenly applied brake in the middle of the road, the Tribunal had wrongly fastened negligence on the part of the claimant to the extent of 60%. He also contended that the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation to the claimant and therefore, prayed for enhancement of the same. 8. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents contended that the Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, had awarded just compensation and therefore the same need not be disturbed in the present appeal. 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023Negligence9. It is seen from the records that the accident took place on the National Highways and the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52-F-9127 was going ahead of the bus driven by the claimant. The driver of the bus should have maintained a minimum distance from the lorry as per the traffic rules. Had the claimant followed the traffic rules, he could have averted the accident. He had infact hit the lorry from behind as a result of which he sustained injuries. Considering the manner of accident, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the claimant in the ratio 40:60 and therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same.Quantum9.1. The Medical Board attached to Krishnagiri Head Quarters Hospital assessed the partial permanent disability of the claimant as 40%. However, the Tribunal had reduced it to 35% without any basis. Therefore, the partial permanent disability of the claimant is taken up as 40% as assessed by the Medical Board. Since there is no functional disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,57,500/- towards partial 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023permanent disability by fixing a sum of Rs.4,500/- per percentage of disability. Considering the age of the claimant and the year of accident, a sum of Rs.5,000/- per percentage of disability is awarded. Hence, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (40x5000) is awarded towards partial permanent disability. 9.2. The following tabular column would show the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the amount awarded by this Court under various heads. S.No.DescriptionAmount awarded by Tribunal (Rs.)Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.)1.Partial permanent disability1,57,500/-(35x4500)2,00,000/-(40x5000)2.Medical expenses43,343/-43,343/-3.Loss of income45,000/-45,000/-4.Pain and sufferings30,000/-30,000/-5.Transportation expenses17,400/-17,400/-6.Extra nourishment3,000/-3,000/-7.Damages to the clothes1,000/-1,000/-6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023S.No.DescriptionAmount awarded by Tribunal (Rs.)Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.)8.Attender charges15,000/-15,000/-9.Loss of amenities10,000/-10,000/-Total3,22,243/-3,64,743/-Less:60% contributory negligence1,93,346/-2,18,846/-Compensation awarded1,28,897/-Rounded off to1,28,900/-1,45,897/-9.3. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,45,897/- that would carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.10. In the result,i.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.ii.The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,45,897/- (40% of the total compensation amount of Rs.3,64,743/-).7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023iii.The appellant / claimant is directed to pay court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if any, and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after receipt of Court fee.iv.The second Respondent, the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.1,45,897/- (less the amount already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.505/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order/uploading of this order.v.On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same, after following due process of law. 21.10.2024Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking orderbga8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023To1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri.2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Dare House, 2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001.3. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem-7. 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1373 of 2023R.HEMALATHA, J.bgaC.M.A.No.1373 of 2023 21.10.202410/10