Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

The Managing Director, Vs. M.Subramani

The Managing Director, vs M.Subramani

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 18, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1167917

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Managing Director,

Respondent

M.Subramani

Excerpt

.....: mr.p.prabhakaran :judgment challenging the award passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal / chief judicial magistrate court, karur in mco.no.94 of 2009, the transport corporation has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal. 2.the brief facts of the case are as under: on 19.01.2009 at about 10.00 p.m., the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing registration no.tn-45-n-2054, which was proceeding in the karur  salem main road. when the bus reached near manmangalam, it dashed against the back side of a lorry bearing registration no.tn-28-a-1900 which was standing on the left side of the road. due to the said impact, the claimant sustained injuries. the claimant filed a claim petition before the motor accidents claims tribunal, karur, claiming a compensation of rs.4,00,000/-. the appellant has filed a counter resisting the claim made by the claimant. 3.to substantiate the case, the claimant examined himself as p.w.1 and marked exs.p1 to p3. on the side of the appellant, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. the tribunal, based on the evidence of p.w.1 and ex.p1-fir, held that the driver of the bus belong to the appellant transport corporation was responsible for the accident, and awarded a compensation of rs.66,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.challenging the award of the tribunal, the appellant transport corporation has filed the present appeal. 4.heard mr.p.prabhakaran, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. 5.the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal, without considering the facts and evidence available on record, has wrongly fixed the entire liability on the transport corporation. he has further submitted that the lorry was parked without any signal light or indication and therefore, fixing entire liability on the appellant is not sustainable under law. 6.the claimant / p.w.1 has given evidence stating that in the accident, he sustained fracture in the lower jaw and upper jaw and he was.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM C.M.A.(MD)No.592 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2014 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakonam Limited, Periyamilaguparai, Tiruchirappalli-1..Appellant versus M.Subramani ..Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.94 of 2009 dated 16.09.2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur.

!For Appellant : Mr.P.Prabhakaran :JUDGMENT

Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur in MCo.No.94 of 2009, the Transport Corporation has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2.The brief facts of the case are as under: On 19.01.2009 at about 10.00 p.m., the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-2054, which was proceeding in the Karur  Salem Main Road.

When the bus reached near Manmangalam, it dashed against the back side of a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-A-1900 which was standing on the left side of the road.

Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained injuries.

The claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur, claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

The appellant has filed a counter resisting the claim made by the claimant.

3.To substantiate the case, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P3.

On the side of the appellant, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

The Tribunal, based on the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1-FIR, held that the driver of the bus belong to the appellant Transport Corporation was responsible for the accident, and awarded a compensation of Rs.66,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.Challenging the award of the Tribunal, the appellant Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.

4.Heard Mr.P.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal, without considering the facts and evidence available on record, has wrongly fixed the entire liability on the Transport Corporation.

He has further submitted that the lorry was parked without any signal light or indication and therefore, fixing entire liability on the appellant is not sustainable under law.

6.The claimant / P.W.1 has given evidence stating that in the accident, he sustained fracture in the lower jaw and upper jaw and he was admitted at Amaravathi Hospital, Karur.

Ex.P2 is the Wound Certificate, which shows that the claimant had sustained three injuries and one injury is grievous in nature.

Ex.P3-Discharge Summary shows that the claimant had taken treatment as in-patient from 19.01.2009 to 23.01.2009.

The Tribunal, relying on the evidence of P.W.1, Exs.P2 and P3, has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, totalling to Rs.66,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.7.The Tribunal, based on the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1, has held that the driver of the appellant was responsible for the accident.

The appellant has not let in any evidence to substantiate their contention that the driver of the lorry was also responsible for the accident.

Ex.P2 shows that the claimant had sustained three injuries and he was admitted in the Amaravathi Hospital, Karur and he took treatment as in-patient for 5 days.

Ex.P2 further shows that one of the injuries is grievous in nature.

The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.P2 and P3, has awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, attendant charges and loss of income during the treatment period.

The amounts awarded on the conventional damages are reasonable.

Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed.

The interest rate fixed by the Tribunal is maintained.

8.In the result, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

No costs.

9.In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant shall deposit the entire award amount with interest and cost within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the judgment.

On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

To 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial