This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the decree and judgment dated 31.03.2004 made in MCOP NO.89 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court, Cheyyar) awarding a compensation of Rs.80,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing a claim petition till date of payment of compensation.
2. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division, Vellore has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the order.
3. The short facts of the case are as follows;-
On 25.02.1996, at about 09.30 a.m., when the petitioner, was riding his bicycle on Cheyyar to Arani main road, near Thandarai bus stop, the bus bearing registration No.TN-23-N-0106, driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner. The petitioner was seriously injured and admitted at Government Hospital, Cheyyar and then referred to Government Hospital, Madras and is still taking treatment.
The petitioner is aged about 36. He was hale and healthy before the accident. After the accident, he is not able to do his normal work as he has suffered a grievous permanent disability. The respondent is the owner of the said bus. The driver is an employee of the said respondent, State Transport Corporation Limited, and so they are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest.
4. The petitioner was an agricultural coolie at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.1,000 per month. Regarding the accident, the police attached to Cheyyar Police Station have registered a criminal case in Cr.No.111 of 1996.
5. The respondent/transport corporation has given a counter and resisted the claim of the petitioner. In their counter it has been submitted that on 25.02.1996, the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN-23-N-0106, (Route A10), was taken from Arani at 08.55 a.m. and was proceeding towards Cheyyar. At Vadugappattu Bus Stop, the bus was stopped so that passengers could get down and that other passengers alighted and the bus was then started and while it was nearing Thandarai vilage at 09.45 a.m. the driver of the bus on seeing the petitioner, riding his cycle from the opposite side with high speed and in a reckless manner; stopped the bus, on the left side of the road. In spite of this, the petitioner, losing his balance, fell down on the road and was behind the rear wheels of the bus on its right side. Hence, there has been no negligence on the part of the bus driver and it was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, which has caused the accident. Further, the claim of the petitioner is also very excessive.
6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues namely, 1) Was the accident caused by the negligence of the driver of the respondent bus? 2) If the respondent is liable to pay compensation, what is the quantum of compensation?
7. On the side of the respondent/claimant, two witnesses were examined namely one Chandiran as PW1 and one Ellappan as PW2. On the claimant side, four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4 namely 1) first information report as Ex.P1, 2) Motor Vehicle Inspector's report as Ex.P2, 3) Accident Register as Ex.P3 and accident register of the Government Hospital, Chennai as Ex.P4.
8. In order to prove the negligence, the claimant had examined himself as PW1 and he has deposed in his evidence that on 25.02.1996 at about 9.30 a.m., while he was travelling on the Cheyyar to Arani road, near Thandarai Bus stop, the bus bearing registration No. TN-23-N-0106, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner and has caused the accident. In support of this claim, the petitioner furnished Ex.P1, the copy of the first information report, Ex.P2-the copy of the motor vehicle inspector's report, Ex.P3- Copy of accident report and has submitted that the negligence was only on the part of the driver of the bus. Further, PW2, who was an eyewitness was examined. The respondent has not denied that the accident had occurred.
9. From the scrutiny of the above documents, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that it was only on account of negligence of the driver of the bus that the accident occurred.
10. The petitioner had sustained serious injuries in the accident. The petitioner has stated that due to the accident, the bone in his left hand has been fractured and due to the head injury, his vision has become impaired and has become deaf. Further, the petitioner has submitted that his spinal cord has also been affected and that he had taken treatment at Government Hospital at Cheyyar and Chennai. From an examination of Exs.P3 and P4, it is clearly established that the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries. Though it was not established through a doctor that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability, the Tribunal on consideration of the nature of grievous injuries suffered by him and that he had taken treatment at Government Hospitals at Cheyyar and Chennai, awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income due to permanent disability and Rs.33,000/- for loss of future earnings. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering; for damages to cycle Rs.2,000/-; In total, a sum of Rs.80,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation with 9% interest from the date of filing of petition till date of payment of compensation directing the transport corporation to deposit the same within two months and the said amount has to be deposited in a nationalised bank as fixed deposit for three years and that the claimant is permitted to receive the excess Court fee paid by him.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.80,000/- without any basis. No doctor was examined. Claimant has not sustained any disability. In the absence of disability certificate, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-; for loss of earning power Rs.33,000/- and for pain and suffering Rs.15,000/-. This award has been granted by the Tribunal only on an arbitrary manner. Further, the learned Tribunal has relied on the evidence of PW1, the claimant alone for establishing claim on basis of documentary evidence.
12. For the foregoing reasons and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court opines that the claimant is involved in agricultural operations as labourer/collie. For his nature of work, he has to use muscle strength to work in the agricultural field. Because of the injuries, especially left hand bone fracture, fracture in the ribs and head injuries, the petitioner is unable to continue doing his work. Supporting this he has produced two documents as Exs.P3 and P4 i.e. accident register and Chennai Government Hospital accident record. In the instant case, which is an exceptional case, these factors are enough to justify the compensation which had been granted. The Court is fully satisfied that in the present case, the petitioner's ability to do work has been impaired. A similar case has been reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 115 (Marisaselvan vs. united India Assurance Company and another). In this case, it was discussed that the injured/claimant, being a coolie is required to use muscle strength to work as a coolie and due to injuries, his ability to work is reduced as also his earning power.
13. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs.30,000/- for disability and Rs.33,000/- for future loss of earnings. As these are inter-related losses, they should have been specified under a single head. As this has not been done, this Court restructures the award, after considering the facts and nature of injuries and occupation of the claimant, as under;
Loss of earnings Rs.40,000 Compensation for mental stress Rs.15,000 Pain and suffering Rs.20,000 Damage to cloth and articles Rs.2,000 Nourishment Rs.3,000 Total Rs.80,000 (This was claimed by the claimant and the same has been awarded by this Court).
14. As such, the award granted by the Tribunal has been modified, with the same quantum and restructured as above and thus, confirmed. Further, the Tribunal ordered interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the said compensation, which is equitable and fair.
15. The above said case came before this Court on 01.04.2005, when this Court directed the appellant/State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire balance compensation including interest and costs to the credit of MCOP No.89 of 1999 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar. Further, the Court directed the claimant to withdraw 50% of award amount with proportionate interest and costs. The said accident happened in the year 1996, so it is open to the respondent/claimant to receive the balance amount lying to the credit of MCOP No.89 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law.
16. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar in MCOP No.89 of 1999 is restructured and confirmed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal.
JIKR To The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cheyyar