This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.1218 of 2002 dated 30th November, 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli.
2. The petitioner herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the petitioner before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned in the lower Court.
3. The facts of the case is that on 10.12.2001 at about 5.45 a.m, the petitioner was driving an ambassador car bearing registration number T.N.K.2144 from Ramanujampudur to Palayamkottai on the Tirunelveli- Tiruchendur main road on the leftern side of the road towards west near V.M.Chatram telephone quarters. At that time, a bus bearing registration No.TN.01.N.6643 belonging to the respondent came from the opposite direction came in a high speed reckless manner rashly and negligently on the wrong side and dashed against the ambassador car. As a result of which, the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately, after the occurrence, the petitioner was taken to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, where, he was admitted and treated as inpatient from 10.12.2001 to 15.12.2001. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was continuing his medical treatments in the private clinics on a heavy cost. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was incurred towards medicines and medical charge to the petitioner.
4. It is further averred that the petitioner was in no way responsible for the accident and it was occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent bus driver, who was solely responsible for the accident. Pursuant to which, Perumalpuram police registered a criminal case against the driver of the respondent in Crime number 308 of 2001 under
Sections 279,337 &
304(A) I.P.C. and the case was pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.I Court at Tlrunelveli.
5. The petitioner was aged 22 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy and free from any ailment at the time of the accident. The petitioner was engaged as driver and thereby, earning a monthly income of Rs.3,500/- per month. Due to this unfortunate tragic accident, the petitioner sustained injuries over the forehead, left leg, cheek and the petitioner was not able to do his driver work as before. The petitioner was not able to use his left leg freely as before and the movement of the left leg was totally restricted and it is a permanent. In total, the petitioner was unable to attend his daily avocations and normal and routine works as before. Inspite of best and effective treatments were taken by the petitioner, there was no possibility for the full recovery. Thus, the petitioner was permanently disabled. The accident took place only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the respondent.
6. The petitioner herein, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, could not attend to any work till date after the accident and thereby he sustained loss of future earnings and loss of partial earnings to the tune of Rs.21,000/-. He spent a sum of Rs.500/- towards transport to hospital, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishments; Rs.5,000/- towards expenses on person attending on him while he was under treatment and Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of medicines and medical charges. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for continuing permanent disability and that for loss of earning power, he claims a sum of Rs.25,000/-. In total, the petitioner spent on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident was at Rs.1,56,500/-. However, he restricted his claim to the tune of Rs.50,000/- only.
7. The respondent is the owner of the bus bearing registration number T.N.01.N.6643 which was involved in the accident. The accident has taken place solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the respondent herein and he was under the direct control and employment of the respondent and the accident has taken place during the course of such employment. Hence, the respondent is vicariously liable for the tortuous act of the crew member of the respondent and hence liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners as claimed by them.
8. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, they denied the averment of the petitioner and it was stated that they are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the M.C.O.P.No.1218 of 2002.
9. However, the Court below on appreciation of facts and evidence, has awarded a compensation amount of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9%. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent is before this Court.
10. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that despite overwhelming evidence, the Court below has not taken into consideration and awarded a higher compensation to the petitioner. Hence, he seeks interference with the award of the Court below.
11. When the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Hence, this Court proceeded with the matter on the basis of the materials placed before this Court.
12. A perusal of the judgment would show that the Court below has recorded categorical finding that the driver is solely responsible for the accident that took place on the fateful day. In this connection, the driver of the bus was examined and documents were marked on the side of the petitioner to show that the accident was happened due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent. Subsequently, a First Information Report also came to be registered under
Sections 279,337 &
304(A) I.P.C. against the driver of the bus. On the part of negligence, the driver of the bus was examined before the Court below and he deposed the same. Hence, the respondent is liable to pay compensation.
13. Coming to the quantum of compensation also, the amount awarded by the Court below cannot be considered to be on the higher side as claimed by the respondent since the petitioner sustained injuries all over his body and at the time of accident, the petitioner was admitted to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and treated as inpatient from 10.12.2001 to 15.12.2001. During hospitalisation, he would have spent money to the doctor, medicines, nutritional items, etc., During the said period, he would not have also earned. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Court below is quite reasonable.
14. For the foregoing reasons, there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Court below and hence, I have no hesitation to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
15. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
(l)The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur.
(2)The Record Keeper, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..