The Managing Director v. Kannan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.04.2016

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN C.M.A.No.1038 of 2016 and C.M.P. No.7970 of 2016 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri. ..Appellant/Respondent No.1 Vs.

1.Kannan ..Respondent No.1/Petitioner

2. Anbalagan

3. Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited No.19, Officer Line, Vellore.

..Respondents No.2&3/ Respondents 2 & 3 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.88 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

For Appellant : Mr. D.Venkatachalam For Respondent *1 : *M/s.M.Malar For R2 : M/s.g.Mohanraj

J U D G M E N T

The Transport Corporation has come up with this appeal challenging the negligence and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2.

In an accident which occurred on 11.10.2008, the appellant Transport Corporation bus dashed against an Eicher lorry coming on the opposite side, on the Tiruvannamalai Bangalore Road, whereby the claimant being one of the passengers of the bus, sustained fracture below the right knee, grievous injuries on the right knee, right thigh and multiple injuries all over his body. Hence, he filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

After analyzing the available oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,44,480/- as compensation, under the following heads:

Heads Amount Disability Rs. 70,000.00 Pain and Sufferings Rs. 25,000.00 Medical Expenses Rs. 30,480.00 Transport Expenses Rs. 5,000.00 Extra Nourishment Rs.

5,000.00 Loss of Income during treatment period Rs.

9,000.00 Total Rs.1,44,480.00 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation would mainly contend that the Tribunal has not considered the F.I.R filed against the driver of the Eicher lorry, which caused the accident and that the entire liability should have been fixed on the lorry and not on the appellant Transport Corporation bus. He would further contend that the Disability of 35% assessed by the Doctor ought not to have been agreed by the Tribunal, when the injuries sustained by the claimant is not grievous in nature. The Tribunal has also erred by considering the evidence of PW1, when it has not been corroborated by any other independent witnesses.

4.

It is found from the records that the Tribunal has passed the award based on documentary evidences and depositions of the witnesses. It has been proved before the Tribunal that the driver of the appellant Corporation bus is responsible for the accident and hence the liability has been fixed on the appellant Transport Corporation. It has been stated by the Doctor that due to the fracture sustained by the claimant on the right leg, its malunion and restriction of movement and other grievous injuries, there is partial permanent disability of 35%, which has been rightly accepted by the Tribunal. The claimant has taken treatment in three hospitals for better cure. The award granted by the Tribunal is fair and reasonable.

*

5. A perusal of the records would show that the injured claimant has suffered grievous injuries in the accident and has taken treatment in three hospitals. Inspite of the same, it is stated that his right leg is mal united and the movement is restricted. Hence, the 35% disability assessed by the Doctor has been rightly accepted by the Tribunal. Although F.I.R has been registered against the driver of the Eicher Lorry, who died on the spot, based on the statement of the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation, on enquiry it is found by the Tribunal that the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation Bus. The Tribunal has awarded a reasonable compensation for the 'loss of income' sustained

by the injured claimant, for the period he was hospitalised. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the other heads, are also fair and reasonable and hence, this Court finds that the quantum of compensation is not excessive and the same is confirmed.

6.

In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount together with accrued interest, less the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.88 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall pay compensation to the claimant in the form of a crossed Account Payee Cheque, favouring only the claimant and it should not be issued in favour of any other person/Company. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. Is also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) Dt.27.7.

16 *Corrected as per order dt.1.11.16 sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-IV) Dt.7.11.16 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar avr To The Principal Subordinate Judge, *To be substituted the order Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, already despatched on Tiruvannamalai.

30.8.2016.

+1cc to M/s. M. Malar, Advocate, S.R.No.*61756 RSK(CO) EU(17/08/2016) krd 7/11 C.M.A.No.1038 of 2016 and C.M.P. No.7970 of 2016