Managing Director v. Madhesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-07-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and CMP.No.22164 of 2024

1. Managing Director Karnataka Transport Corporation, Chikkbellapura Division, Chikkbellapura District, Andhra Pradesh.

Appellant(s) Vs

1. Madhesh S/o. Mr.Muniappan, No.2/270, 3rd Ward, parandapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, krishnagiri District.

Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prays to set aside the judgment and decree dated 02/11/2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 858 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge) at Krishnagiri.

For Appellant(s):

Mr.T.Thiyagarajan For Respondent(s):

Mr. S.P. Yuvaraj JUDGEMENT Challenging the entire liability fixed upon the appellant, the Karnataka Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.

2. The learned counsel submitted that at the time of accident, the injured / respondent herein was travelling in a bus Reg.No.KA-02-AA-1054 as a passenger. The said bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner, and without noticing the bus belonging to the appellant, it dashed against the appellant's bus. As a result, one of the passengers sustained grievous injuries / the respondent herein. Therefore, there was negligence on the part of the registered vehicle KA-02-AA-1054. However, the Tribunal fixed the entire liability upon the appellant without contributory negligence to the oncoming vehicle. Hence, Therefore he prayed for modification of the liability. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier method even though the respondent did not sustain any permanent disability.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent / claimant raised objections, stating that the injured had sustained grievous injuries, and and the Medical board assessed the disability at 40%. However, the Tribunal considered only 20% disability and applied the multiplier, which is legally sustainable. Therefore, he opposed the contentions of the appellant.

4. On a perusal of the records, it is noted that with respect to the negligence of the opposite vehicle KA-02-AA 1054, no evidence was adduced on the side of appellant before the trial Court. Moreover, the driver of the appellant's bus was also not examined. In the absence of any contrary evidence before the trial Court, the appellant's attempt to rely on the rough sketch alone to fix contributory negligence on the opposite vehicle is unsustainable. Hence, the fixation of entire liability upon the appellant does not warrant interference.

5. With respect to the compensation awarded by applying the multiplier method, the records reveal that the claimant sustained multiple injuries. The

Doctor certified 45% disability, but the Tribunal took only 25% and applied the multiplier, which also does not warrant interference.

6. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits, and the findings of the Tribunal are confirmed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 09-07-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rri

To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge), Krishnagiri.

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

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rri and CMP.No.22164 of 2024 09-07-2025