Skip to main content

Supreme Court asks MTC to pay Rs 6 lakh to taxi driver injured in accident

The compensation for functional disability for a motor accident victim cannot be uniformly applied, and it should depend on the impact it caused to an individual's career, said the Supreme Court directing the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited (MTC) to pay 6.13 lakh as compensation to a taxi driver.

In September 2008, an MTC bus hit a taxi driven by G Dhanasekar, leaving him with a fractured right leg and arm. After undergoing treatment, he was not able to bend his right knee beyond 90 degrees. His leg was shortened by a centimetre and could not walk without a limp. His right hand movement was also restricted. Requesting a suitable compensation, he said, "I am not in a position to drive vehicles. I completely lost my capacity to earn."

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Chennai fixed the liability for accident on Dhanasekar as 50% and provided him with a compensation for 4.5 lakh. In 2010, he moved the high court for enhancement of compensation. The high court fixed his liability for the accident as 30% and reduced the compensation to 3.2 lakh.

Dhanasekar then moved the Supreme Court stating the tribunal and high court had erred by not taking into consideration his functional disability. As he could not continue his profession as a driver, he had to be reasonably compensated, he said. Further, there was no contributory negligence on his part and the bus driver was solely responsible for the accident.

A bench comprising Justice S J Mukhopadhaya and Justice Kurian Joseph said the tribunal's decision on ascertaining contributory negligence was "intra contradictory." Despite holding the bus driver as "the root cause of the accident," it went on to say "both vehicles came in a rash and negligent manner," and held both Dhansekar and the driver "equally responsible for the accident."

It also said the high court's finding that the driver's contributory negligence being 30% was "difficult to sustain." "Unfortunately despite specific ground taken before the HC, this aspect of the matter (contributory negligence) was not considered properly." The apex court said according to the evidence of a witness, a passenger was thrown out of the window and the taxi took a sudden U-turn on the impact of the accident. This meant the bus driver was solely responsible, said the bench.

While the victim was not totally disabled to drive a vehicle, he could not continue his career as a taxi driver, noted the bench adding "the percentage of physical disability can be safely taken as the extent of functional disability." As the doctor had assessed his disability as 35%, he had to be proportionately compensated along with reimbursements for medical expenses. However, as he had been compensated for functional disability, he was not entitled to any other compensation on account of physical disability or loss or earning capacity.

The bench then computed his compensation as around Rs 6.13 lakh.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Supreme-Court-asks-MTC-to-pay-Rs-6-lakh-to-taxi-driver-injured-in-accident/articleshow/30925358.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more