G. DHANASEKAR versus M.D. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPN. LTD.

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 12-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 1021 
G. DHANASEKAR 
v. 
M.D., METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPN. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2008-2009 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: s.166 - Compensation 
A 
B 
- Functional disability - Accident of victim's car with a bus 
C 
resulting in fracture of victim's right arm and leg - Victim driver 
by profession - Tribunal held that negligence on part of driver 
of bus was root cause of accident, however, it further held that · 
manner of accident showed that both the vehicles came in 
uncontrollable speed and dashed against each other and, 
D 
therefore, drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible 
- Tribunal fixed liability of appellant at 50% while High Court 
reduced the liability to 30% - On appeal, held: The findings 
of tribunal were intra contradictory - This aspect was not 
considered by the High Court also - Therefore, first finding of E 
Tribunal that negligence on part of bus driver was root cause 
of accident is restored - Appellant was a driver operating a 
tourist taxi - On account of the physical disability suffered by 
him, he could not continue his avocation in the same manner 
as before - He was aged 46 years at the time of accident -
F 
Therefore, he ought to be given just and reasonable 
compensation for his functional disability as his income has 
been affected - Doctor assessed functional disability at 35% 
- Since the appellant is compensated for functional 
disablement, he will not be entitled to any other compensation 
G 
on account of physical disability or loss of earning capacity, 
etc - Appellant awarded compensation of Rs. 6, 13, 2001-. 
The appellant-claimant was driver by profession and 
1021 
H 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A operating a tourist taxi himself. While the appellant was 
driving Tata Sumo car a bus operated by the respondent 
came from opposite direction and dashed against his car. 
The appellant suffered fracture on right leg and right arm. 
B 
He filed claim for compensation before the MACT. 
The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of 
Rs.4,50,0001-. The Tribunal found that the appellant has 
contributed to the accident and, hence, the liability of the 
respondent was fixed at 50%. On appeal, the High Court 
C held that the contributory negligence on the part of the 
appellant was only 30% and the compensation was also 
refixed to an amount of Rs.3,20,0001- and the appellant 
was held entitled to Rs.2,24,0001-with interest@ 7.5% per 
annum. The instant appeals were filed challenging the 
order of the High Court. 
D 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no dispute that the vehicles were 
coming in opposite direction. Also, the driver of the bus 
E had filed a complaint before the police and the police had 
registered an FIR. Except the driver of both the vehicles 
and the doctor who treated the appellant, there was no 
other oral evidence. The FIR, disability certificate, medical 
bills, driving licence, RC book and permit were also 
F marked. The Tribunal, having referred to the entire 
evidence, held that the bus came in a rash and negligent 
manner and dashed against the car driven by the 
appellant and, therefore negligence on the part of the 
driver of the bus was the root cause of the accident. 
Having arrived at such finding regarding negligence on 
G the part of the driver of the bus, the Tribunal proceeded 
further in holding that the manner of the accident shows 
that both the vehicles came in an uncontrollable speed 
and dashed against each other and the impact of the 
accident was very heavy and both the vehicles damaged 
H 
G. DHANASEKAR v. M.D., METROPOLITAN 
1023 
TRANSPORT CORPN. LTD. 
heavily. It held that negligence on the part of the drivers 
A 
of both vehicles was the root cause of the accident and 
they were equally responsible for the accident and fixed 
contributory negligence on the driver of both vehicles. 
These findings were intra contradictory. Unfortunately, 
despite specific ground taken before the High Court, this 
B 
aspect of the matter was not considered properly. 
[Paras10, 11, 12] [1028-A-B, D-H; 1029-A-B] 
2. PW1 has stated that a passenger in the bus was 
thrown out of the bus through the front windscreen and 
that the car took a u-turn on account of the impact of the 
C 
accident. Apparently, it was this evidence which led to the 
first finding by the Tribunal that the negligence on the part 
of the drive

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.