G. GNANAM @ GNANAMOORTHY versus METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 767 · Decided: 16-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 767 
G. GNANAM @ GNANAMOORTHY 
A 
v. 
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
(Civil Appeal No. 7320-7321 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 16, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: 
\.( 
s. 166- Motor accident- Injuries suffered by passenger 
- Claim for loss of earnings and permanent disability -
c 
Tribunal allowing Rs.1,50,0001- towards loss of earning and 
Rs.1,00,0001- under other heads including Rs.50,0001- towards 
· permanent disability - High Court holding the claimant guilty 
of contributory negligence and reducing compensation only 
to Rs.50,0001- towards permanent disability- HELD: In terms 
D 
of s.166, injured is. entitled to just compensation - In the 
instant case, claimant was not guilty of contributory 
negligence - High Court has not assigned any reason in 
support of inferences drawn - Judgment of High Court set 
aside and that of Tribunal restored. 
E 
A bus of the respondent-Transport Corporation 
dashed against a lamp post and in the accident the 
appellant's upper arm was broken into two pieces. The 
doctor opined that the appellant could not do work by 
holding objects with grip and assessed the permanent F 
disability as 65%. Prior to the accident, the appellant was 
X' 
a fitter and thereafter he started working as helper. He 
filed a claim liefore the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 
for Rs.6,00~000/- as damages. The Tribunal allowed 
Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. It further 
granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-which included Rs.50,000/ G 
- toward's permanent disability. On appeal by the 
Corporation,- the High Court held that the claimant was 
guilty of contributory negligence to 1the extent of 50% and 
, that he was entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards permanent 
767 
H 
768 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
,A disability. Aggrieved, the claimant filed the appeal. 
'
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
,. 
HELD: 1.1. In ,terms of Section 166 of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988, a person who has suffered injury in an 
B 
accident is entitled to just comper,isation. What would be 
a just compensation, however, would depend upon the 
facts and circumstances of each case. [Para 9] [772-C] 
Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty & 
Anr. (2003) 7 SCC 197, relied on. 
,. . 
.. 
c 
1.2. The High Court, without considering the relevant 
r-
facts, could not have arrived at a conclusion that the 
appellant in any way was responsible for the injury. 
Further, the High Court should not have disbelieved the 
evidence of the doctor of a government hospital on ttie 
D 
supposition that he had been issuing certificates fixing 
permanent disability which was not proportionate to the 
injury'. Even no such suggestion had been given to him. 
That was never the case of the respondent. [Para 10 and 
~ 
11] [772-0-E] 
i' 
E 
1.3. The fact that the appellant has suffered a 
functional disability is not in dispute. In a situation of this 
nature and keeping in view the age of the appellant, 
i-
which on the date of accident was 29 years, if only a sum 
of Rs. 500/- per month was considered just for the 
.,.. 
purpose of awarding compensation totaling a sum of Rs. 
F 1,so,0·001- only, there is no reason for the High Court to 
have differed therewith. The High Court has not a~signed 
)I.. 
any reason in support of the inferences drawn. The 
materials· on·;record were not considered by it at· all. The 
judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the 
G Tribunal restored. [Para 13] [773-B-E] 
Case Law Reference: 
(2003) 1 sec 197 
relied on 
para 8 
~I 
, 
~! 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
. 
H 7320-7321 of 2008. 
.. 
--' 
G. GNANAM @GNANAMOORTHY v. METROPOLITAN 
769 
TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
From the final Judgment and Order dated "l-0-.8.2004 of the 
A 
High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. (NPD) No. 167 
of 1999 and C.M.P. No. 2100of1999 and Cro~s Objection No. 
9 of 2000. 
Vipin Nair, P.B. Suresh ancf S. Balaji (for M/s. Temple Law 
Firm) for the Appellant. 
8 
A Mariarputham and Aruna M~thur (for M/s. Arputham 
Aruna & Co.) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Appellant was travelling as a passenger in a bus 
belonging to the respondent herein on 14.6.1995. It met with 
an accident. Injuries suffered by him as noted by Dr. J.R.R. 
Thiagarajan, Retired Prof. of Ortheo in Stanley Medical College 
Hospital, Chennai, are as under: 
" ... His right upper arm was broken

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