Skip to content


T. Kuppayan Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Karaikudi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.A(MD)No. 563 of 2004
Judge
AppellantT. Kuppayan
RespondentThe Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Karaikudi
Excerpt:
motor vehicles act, 1988 - section 173 -.....against judgment and decree dated 12.08.2003 made in m.c.o.p.no.14 of 2000, on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal (chief judicial magistrate) ramanathapuram.) 1. the present case on hand, is a case of grievous injury in the right shoulder and the fracture in the right hand. the claimant, at the time of accident was aged about 42 years and was in occupation as a sweeper in pudumadam panchayat board. the claimant filed the application before the motor accident claims tribunal (chief judicial magistrate), ramanathapuram and the court considering the nature of injury and based on the evidences available, awarded rs.20,500/- towards total compensation. 2. the present appeal is filed by the claimant on the ground that he sustained permanent disability, in view of the injury in.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2003 made in M.C.O.P.No.14 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Ramanathapuram.)

1. The present case on hand, is a case of grievous injury in the right shoulder and the fracture in the right hand. The claimant, at the time of accident was aged about 42 years and was in occupation as a Sweeper in Pudumadam Panchayat Board. The claimant filed the application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Ramanathapuram and the Court considering the nature of injury and based on the evidences available, awarded Rs.20,500/- towards total compensation.

2. The present appeal is filed by the claimant on the ground that he sustained permanent disability, in view of the injury in the shoulder and accordingly, the compensation is less and is to be enhanced. The findings of the Tribunal is very clear that the subsequent complaint of the claimant is that he was taking treatment cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that such a complaint and treatment was taken after two years from the date of the accident and therefore it would have been on other reasons and not due to the accident. This Court is not inclined to consider the case of the appellant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Further, the Tribunal in its findings categorically held that 40% disability cited in the deposition of the PW11 that the claimant suffered 40% disability cannot be accepted. In view of the fact that it is a single injury and the appellant was taking treatment and the injury was cured completely and therefore the disability aspect cannot be considered by this Court at this point of time. The compensation fixed by the Tribunal is correct and accordingly the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.14 of 2000, dated 12.08.2003, is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //