Since the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection are arising out of the same accident/claim, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection are disposed of by this Common judgment.
2. Both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection have been filed against the award dated 11.04.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.121 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli.
3. It is a case of injury sustained by the injured/claimant in an accident, which took place on 15.12.2007 at about 2.30 p.m.
4. It is the case of the injured/claimant before the Tribunal that on the date of accident, when the injured/claimant was walking on the eastern side of the road, the bus bearing Registration No.TN 45 N 2448, which came from West to East was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the injured and caused the accident and in the said accident, the injured sustained grievous injuries.
5. The injured/claimant filed an application in M.C.O.P.No.121 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional Sub- Court, Tiruchirappalli, seeking compensation.
6. Before the Tribunal, the injured/claimant examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked eight documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The respondent did not let in any oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal.
7. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidences and the arguments advanced on either side and also appreciating the evidences on record held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and therefore, directed the Respondent/Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.3,74,200/- as total compensation.
8. Against which, the appellant/Transport Corporation has filed C.M.A(MD)No.619 of 2014 challenging the liability and the claimant has filed Cros.Obj(MD)No.22 of 2015 seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation submitted that in this case, the injured himself is a tort-feasor as he tried to cross the road without seeing the vehicle and therefore, the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the appellant/Transport Corporation and therefore, the award of the Tribunal requires interference.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the injured/claimant would submit that after considering the evidences on record only the Tribunal fixed the negligence on the driver of the bus. In support of his submission, the learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.10 of the award, wherein it has been rendered as follows:
?10.Mdhy; kDjhuh; cld; te;j mtuJ ikj;Jdh; jdJ g[fhhpy; jq;fSf;F gpd;dhy; te;j ngUe;J Xl;Leh; mjpntfkhft[k; ftdf;Fiwthft[k; mz;zhrpiy fPH;g[wk; cs;s jpUg;gj;jpy; jpUk;g[k;nghJ jdf;F Kd;dhy; brd;w jd; ikj;Jdh; kPJ nkhjptpl;lhh; vd;Wk; nkhjpajpy; jd; ikj;Jdh; ,lJ gf;fk; cs;s rpbkz;l; fl;ilapy; mogl; fPnH tpGe;jhh; ,lJ fhy; fZf;fhy; ghjk; Mfpatw;wpy; gyj;j fhak; Vw;gl;lJ vd;W Twp cs;shh;. tpgj;J ele;j tpjj;jpy; rpwa Kuz;ghL ,Ue;jhYk; ,e;j tpgj;jpw;F vjph;kDjhuh; Xl;Lehpd; ftdf;Fiwt[ vd;W ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; Kot[ bra;fpwJ.?
12. A perusal of the record would show that R.W.1 in his cross- examination has stated that the accident took place only when he turned towards south near roundana. Again he would state that while he was turning, the accident occurred. He has also stated that he did not know which part of the bus dashed against the claimant and only on hearing the sound, he stopped the vehicle and found that the accident had taken place. He had also stated that he found fracture in the right leg of the petitioner and had taken him to the hospital. He himself in his witness stated that after unloading passengers, while he was crossing Annasalai Roundana, the injured tried to cross the road suddenly, in which, he fell down and he was the cause for the accident which is contradictory to the earlier statements. All would go to show that there are contradictory statements made by R.W.1 through out his cross-examination to suit his needs.
13. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the bus was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, which turned towards south of roundana by which the bus dashed against the injured and he fell down on the ground and at that point of time, the bus ran over the leg of the claimant and his leg was consequently removed by a doctor. On a perusal of the records, it would show that the occurrence had taken place only due to the negligence of the driver of the bus, while driving the vehicle in question and therefore, the learned judge has rightly fixed the negligence on the part of the driver in which there is no infirmity or illegality found by this Court. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.619 of 2014 is dismissed and the award of the tribunal is confirmed with regard to negligence. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14. While arguing the cross-objection with respect to the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that the victim sustained injuries and he was treated by P.W.2-Doctor. The Doctor had issued the Disability Certificate under Ex.P7 assessing the permanent disability at 65%. But, without any reason, the Tribunal fixed 45% disability and by applying multiplier method, awarded a sum of Rs.2,59,200/- towards loss of income. He further submitted that because of the disability sustained, after the accident, the claimant is not able to do the driver work and therefore, the multiplier method is to be adopted in this case and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be enhanced.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation submitted that after considering the injuries sustained and after considering the evidences, the Tribunal awarded a just and reasonable compensation and therefore, the same does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.
16. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
17. In respect of quantum, it is an unfortunate case, where a person sustained 65% disability, but, the learned Judge had fixed the disability only at 45% without any reason and awarded lesser compensation. In view of the above, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met only if the compensation awarded for loss of income is increased. Therefore, this Court fixes the disability at 65%.
18. With regard to quantum of compensation, the injured was working as an auto Driver and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-. But, no document was produced to prove the income. Hence, the Tribunal took a sum of Rs.3000/- as loss of monthly income and in my considered view, it is very low and therefore, this Court fixes a sum of Rs.4,500/- as monthly income. And it works out to Rs.4,500x12x15x65/100=5,26,500/-. Since the age of the injured was found to be 37 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per Smt.Sarla Verma .vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 1(SC) case is '15' and then the loss of income would be Rs.5,26,500/- (Rs.4500X12X15X65/100) and the compensation awarded under the other heads are reasonable and the same are confirmed by this Court.
18. In view of the settled position of law, this Court modifies the award of the Tribunal by enhancing the compensation, as under:-
S.No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted
1. For loss of income 2,59,200 5,26,500 enhanced
2. For pain and sufferings 50,000 50,000 confirmed
3. For extra nourishment 25,000 25,000 confirmed
4. For transportation 15,000 15,000 confirmed
5. For medical expenses 15,000 15,000 confirmed
6. For attendant charges 10,000 10,000 confirmed Total Rs.3,74,200 Rs.6,41,500 By enhancing a sum of Rs.2,67,300/-
19. In the result, the Cross.Objection (MD)No.22 of 2015, is partly allowed, enhancing the award of the Tribunal from Rs.3,74,200/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand and Two Hundred only) to a sum of Rs.6,41,500/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation and costs;
20. The Transport Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount of Rs.6,41,500/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty one Thousand Five Hundred only) with accrued interests and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
21. On such payment of amount, the Tribunal is directed to deduct the additional court fee, if any, to be paid by the claimant and transfer the remaining amount directly to the Personal Savings Bank Account Number of the Claimant, through RTGS/NEFT system, after getting his Account Details, within a period of two weeks thereafter. No costs.
To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional Sub-Court, Trichy.
.