This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by appellant-Corporation challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and decree dated 31.1.2005, made in M.AC.T.O.P.No.563 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V), Coimbatore at Tiruppur.
2. In the claim petition, the petitioner/1st respondent has stated that on 9.8.2000 at 9 am when she was travelling in bus bearing Regn.No.TN-33-N-1271 belonged to the 3rd respondent driven by 1st respondent and when the bus was coming from Erode to Tirupur near Pakalayur in Vijayamangalam-Uttukuli road, another bus bearing Regn.No.TN-33-N-1277 belonged to third respondent, driven by second respondent, came in opposite direction and the drivers of both buses lost control and dashed each other and because of collision, she sustained grievous injuries in right leg and had taken treatment for 14 days in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Tirupur. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was working as Checking Supervisor and was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and hence she claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondents 1 and 2 who are drivers of the buses and 3rd respondent-Corporation.
3. The appellant/3rd respondent in the main O.P has filed counter before the Tribunal denying the allegation that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the third respondent bus. It is further stated that in order to avert the head on collision with the other bus bearing Regn.No.TN-33-N-1277, the driver of the third respondent bus turned the bus to the extreme right, hitting the cyclist but unfortunately the third respondent bus bearing Regn.No.TN-33-N-1271 hit the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-33-N-1277 and the petitioner sustained injuries and also contended that the claimant should prove the age, occupation and income etc.
4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, has examined two witnesses as Pws.1 and 2 and marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On the side of the appellant/third respondent, one witness viz. RW.1 was examined and one document as Ex. R1 was marked.
5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal finally held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both buses and therefore the respondents are liable to pay compensation.
6. With regard to negligence and liability aspects, no appeal or cross appeal has been filed and the appellant has filed this appeal only challenging the quantum of compensation. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, the injured petitioner herself examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1-copy of FIR and Ex.P2-wound certificate.
7. A careful reading of the abovesaid oral evidence of PW.1 and the averments in FIR reveals that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of theeee driver of both buses. Further, the oral evidence of RW.1 and Ex.R1 also reveal that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both buses and therefore the Tribunal has correctly held that the respondents in the O.P are liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- for 20% disability and again for grievous injuries, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/ and Rs.5000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 2000/- for medical expenses and Rs.3000/- for extra nourishment without any basis and not supported by any document and therefore the award amount of Rs.55,000/- with 9% interest is exorbitant.
9. Admittedly, from the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2-Dr.Mohamed Suber and Ex.P5-wound certificate, it is clear that the petitioner sustained 20% disability due to the abovesaid accident. But on the side of the claimant, has not produced any reliable oral and documentary evidence to prove that after the accident he was not working as Checking Supervisor as before. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal has not fixed the compensation on multiplier method. With regard to quantum of compensation, as already stated, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- for 20% disability, Rs.25,000/- for grievous injuries, Rs.5000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 2000/- for medical expenses and Rs.3000/- for extra nourishment. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the award of Rs.25,000/- for grievous injuries is not sustainable. But the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of income during the treatment period and also not considered the future loss of income. Therefore the abovesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- may be treated for loss of income during the treatment period and therefore the award passed by the Tribunal is to be confirmed. Hence there is no need for interference with the award passed by the Tribunal.