CMA(MD)/644/2023 of The Managing Director Vs Rajapandi on 16 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Rajnish Pathiyil J.) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 07.09.2022 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 11 of 2018 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Mudukulathur.

2. The parties are referred to in accordance with their respective litigating status before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the sake of clarity.

3. On 22.11.2017, the claimant was riding his Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 65 W 2142 along Sayalkudi–Mudukulathur Road from north to south, on the left side of the road. While so, a bus owned by the respondent Transport Corporation, bearing Registration No. TN 63 N 1216 and driven by one Selvakumar, dashed against the claimant’s motorcycle due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. The claimant was taken to the Government Hospital, Mudukulathur, for treatment and was subsequently admitted to Hanna Joseph Hospital, Madurai, where he was treated for skull injuries. In respect of the said accident, the claimant sought compensation from the respondent.

4. Based on the aforesaid averments, the claimant filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No.11 of 2018, which was contested by the respondent Corporation by filing a counter, wherein the respondent contended that the bus driven by the driver of the Transport Corporation was proceeding at a moderate speed, that the claimant was not wearing a helmet, and that he was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. It was further contended that the claimant was also in an inebriated condition, and that therefore, the respondent Corporation was not liable for the accident.

5. Based on the aforesaid averments, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) . Whether the respondent’s bus driver is responsible for the accident?

(ii) Whether the claimant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident?

(iii) Whether the claimant was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident?

(iv) Whether the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner?

(v) What is the Quantum of Compensation payable to the claimant?

6. On the issue of negligence, namely who was responsible for the accident, the petitioner deposed as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to P6 to contend that the driver of the respondent's vehicle was at fault.

7. The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent corporation contended that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol and was not wearing a helmet.

8. However, the Tribunal, after considering the First Information Report [Ex.P.1], in which the driver of the respondent Corporation's bus was cited as the accused, and that, in the final report filed as Exhibits P5 [Alteration Report] and Final Order [Ex.P.6], found that the bus driver, examined as R.W.1, was responsible for the accident and concluded that the respondent had driven the vehicle from south to north, while the claimant had driven his vehicle from north to south. The accident occurred on the right side of the said road, whereas the bus was supposed to be on the left side of the road. The Tribunal also relied on the Rough Sketch Exhibit (Ex.P.2.), which clearly establishes that the accident occurred on the right side of the road, while the offending vehicle was supposed to be driven on the left side of the road. The spot of the accident, as can be seen from the rough sketch, which clearly indicates that it was on the other half of the road, and thus, the offending vehicle was the one that caused the accident. The Tribunal has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that the negligence is attributable entirely to R.W.1 (the driver of the offending vehicle).

9. The other contention that the claimant was in an inebriated condition has not been established by any evidence. There is neither any record nor any medical evidence to suggest that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol, and hence, the findings of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with.

10. With regard to the issue of liability to pay compensation, the Transport Corporation, being uninsured, is liable to satisfy the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

11. On the issue of quantum, the Tribunal considered Exs.P.8 to P.10, P.12 to P.15, P.24, P.26, as well as Ex.X2, and concluded that the medical bills submitted by the claimant, amounting to Rs.17,57,754/-had to be granted, as the claim was supported by documentary evidence, namely, medical bills, etc.

12. With regard to the quantum of disability, Ex.C1 was marked before the Tribunal, which contains the assessment made by the Medical Board of Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. In the said assessment, 25% disability was assessed by the Medical Board with regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant.

13. It is imperative to set out below the findings of the Tribunal with regard to permanent disability and the same is extracted hereunder: …… “15. Partial Permanent disability: As per Ex.C.1, the Madurai, Government Rajaji Hospital, MCOP Medical Board as assessed 25% disability on the basis of opinion given by Neurosurgeon and stated that Motor system disability Hemiparesis is mild and Hemiparesis means Muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body that can affect the arms, Legs and Facial muscles and sensory system disability of the senses like sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. As per Ex.P.25, the Doctor has given a certificate and stated that the petitioner is under continuous treatment for a depressive disorder. The Honourable High Court of Madras in its Judgment in Oriental Insurance CO. Ltd. Vs. Selvi S.Rithu and 2 others (2021 (1) TNMAC (36), the impact of injuries not taken into account by medical Board and considering the Impact of such accident through the evidence of P.W.1, 2 this tribunal fixed 50% disability and as per the Judgment our Honourable

High Court in Chinnathambi /Vs/ Deepa and others and considering the year of accident (ie) 2017, this tribunal fixed Rs.5000/-for one percentage of disability and So Rs.5000 x 50% = Rs.2,50,000/-.”

14. The Tribunal has, however, considered that the disability should be fixed at 50%, because the claimant was under continuous treatment and that the injuries sustained were to the skull, which resulted in motor system disability, partial paralysis, and also affected his facial muscles, sensory system, and senses such as sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste.

15. The Tribunal has also considered the medical certificate, namely, Ex.P.25, and, following a judgment of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Selvi S.Rithu and two others, reported in 2021 (1) TNMAC 36, and considering the impact of the injuries sustained by the claimant, has fixed the quantum of disability at 50%.

16. Therefore, we find that the quantum of disability has been correctly assessed at 50% by considering not only Ex.P.25 but also Ex.C.1, as the nature of the disability and the continuing treatment that the claimant was receiving cannot be brushed aside. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 also supports the claim for 50% permanent partial disability. The Tribunal has therefore awarded Rs. 5,000 for every percentage of disability, amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-.

17. With regard to pain and suffering, the petitioner underwent surgery on 23.11.2017 and thereafter on two more occasions. Therefore, he has suffered substantially on account of the accident, and the Tribunal has rightly fixed Rs.1,00,000/- under the said head. As regards transport charges, attendant charges, nutritious food, and loss of income, the assessment made by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and cannot be faulted with. The petitioner was unable to work for a period of nearly four months, and on that account, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 32,000/-. With regard to future medical expenses, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been granted, considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, as well as the medical certificate, Ex.P.25, and the continuing treatment received by the petitioner, which is also set out in Ex.P16.

18. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. Description Amount Awarded (Rupees)

1. For the petitioner's Disability (Partial Permanent disability) 50 x 5000 2,50,000/-

2. Transport to Hospital 10,000/-

3. Nutrition Charges 25,000/-

4. Medical Bills 17,57,754/-

5. Attenders Charges 18,000/-

6. Pain and suffering 1,00,000/-

7. Loss of Income - 4 months x Rs.8 000/- 32,000/-

8. Future Medical Expenses 50,000/- TOTAL

22,42,754/-

19. We are therefore of the opinion that the findings of the Tribunal do not call for interference. On a perusal of the records, we find no ground to disturb the findings on negligence or quantum. The compensation awarded is just and reasonable, particularly considering the head injuries sustained by the claimant and the resulting permanent partial disability.

20. In the result,

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

(ii) The compensation of Rs.22,42,754/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.

(iii) The Appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.22,42,754/- (less the amount, if any, already deposited), together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mudukulathur, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(iv) Upon such deposit, together with the accrued interest, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with interest and costs, after adjusting any amount already withdrawn, by filing a necessary application before the Tribunal.

(v) No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(A.Q.,J.) (R.P.L.,J.) 16.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KSA

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. AND RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J. KSA CMA(MD) No. 644 of 2023 16-10-2026