The appellant/respondent has preferred the above appeal in C.M.A.No.587 of 2005 against the decree and judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.612 of 2003 dated 29.06.2004, awarding a total compensation of Rs.34,920/ together with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of petition till date of payment.
2. Aggrieved by this Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the appellant/State Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal before this Court.
3. The facts of the case are as follows;
i) On 27.11.2002, the petitioner, Mr.A.T.Karunanidhi, was proceeding in his TVS 50 XL Moped bearing registration No. TN 29 B 0273 along with one Krishnan on the extreme left side of the road following the traffic rules. At about 16.30 hours, the respondent transport corporation bus bearing registration No.TN 29 N 0781 which was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly, hit the TVS 50 XL Moped. With the result, the petitioner and Krishnan, who travelled in the vehicle were thrown out of the vehicle to a distance and sustained grievous injuries. Because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the accident happened. The Kariamangalam Police Station had registered a case against the driver of the corporation bus in Cr.No.1384/2002 on an alleged offence under
Sections 279 and
337 of IPC.
ii) Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was admitted in the Government Hospital at Palacode for initial treatment. Thereafter, he was taken to the Government Headquarters hospital at Dharmapuri, wherein he was admitted as inpatient. Later, he took treatment at Government Hospitals at Palacode and Dharmapuri as inpatients. In the said accident, the petitioner has lost one frontal tooth in the lower jaw and his 4th and 5th right ribs were fractured and sustained grievous injuries. For his treatment, he spent more than Rs.35,000/-. Due to this accident, the petitioner is unable to do any normal day-to-day work as before. Hence, the petitioner has originally claimed a compensation of Rs.8,51,500/-, but the petitioner restricted his claim to Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondent/State Transport Corporation.
4. The appellant/State Transport Corporation has filed counter statement and resisted the claim of the petitioner, stating that they did not admit the petitioner's occupation and earning and expenses incurred for medical treatment. Further, the Transport Corporation denied that the accident was caused due to the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. At the time of accident, the petitioner had driven the TVS 50 XL Moped with the pillion rider in an uncontrollable speed, in a negligent manner in a drunken condition, lost his control and dashed against the Transport Corporation Bus. Due to carelessness of the petitioner, the said accident has happened. So, the driver of the bus is not responsible for the said accident. In the said accident, two vehicles were involved. So, the petitioner's vehicles insurer is also a necessary party, but the insurance company has not been included as a necessary party in the claim petition. Contributory negligence has to be taken in the said accident. Further, the petitioner did not have any valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, the appellant corporation denied the claim of the petitioner.
5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed two issues namely;
1) whether the accident happened due to the negligence and high speed of the driver of the corporation bus. If so,
2) What is the quantum of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to?
6. On the side of the respondent/claimant three witnesses were examined namely, the petitioner as PW1 and the Co-passenger, one Krishnan as PW2 and one Doctor Elangovan as PW3 and five exhibits namely P1 to P5 were marked. On the appellant side One Rasalaiyan was examined as RW1 and no document was marked.
7. On an oral and documentary evidence, the Motor Accidents Claims Trinunal has awarded Rs.34,920/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.
8. In order to prove the negligence, the respondent/claimant has examined himself as PW1 and tendered evidence and marked the document which stated that he was not in a drunken condition. Further, the respondent/Corporation bus was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. The said evidence was accepted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and confirmed that the driver of the bus was responsible for the said accident.
9. For considering the quantum of compensation, the respondent/petitioner produced the wound certificate, but he did not prove his age on the basis of documentary evidence. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the respondent/claimant age was 55 at the time of the accident. The respondent/petitioner failed to establish that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing coconut and vegetable business. But, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that at the time of accident the petitioner was earning Rs.2,000/- per month.
10. Regarding the disability of the petitioner, the doctor was examined as PW3. The doctor tendered evidence and produced disability certificate. Considering the disability certificate issued by the doctor, age of the petitioner and monthly income of the petitioner, the Tribunal granted compensation as mentioned below;-
For disability Rs.7920 For Loss of earning Rs.2000 For Transport expenses Rs.500 For nutrition Rs.1500 For Damage of Clothes Rs.1000 For Assistance and Man power Rs.2000 For Pain and suffering and mental agony Rs.20000 Total Rs.34920 In total Rs.34,920/- was awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
11. Aggrieved by this award, the appellant's counsel submitted that the Tribunal had erroneously granted Rs.7,920/- towards permanent disability of 3%. Further, the counsel argued that the tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering, which is on the higher side. Further the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal granting compensation on other heads is also an erroneous one. Hence, the appellant counsel prayed this Court to set aside the award granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
12. Considering the claim petition of the claimant, counter statement of the State Transport Corporation and oral and documentary evidence of the claimant's and respondent's evidence, the Court is of the view that negligence was confirmed by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence and compensation was awarded to the claimant for injuries sustained by him. The quantum of compensation is not on the higher side, and it is reasonable, fair and equitable. Hence, this Court is not warranted to interfere with the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.612 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (I Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri. The Court confirms the award and directs the appellant Transport Corporation to deposit the balance compensation amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.612 of 2003 within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Resultingly, the appeal is dismissed with the above observation. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
16.09.2009 Index:Yes Internet:Yes JIKR C.S.KARNAN,J JIKR To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri.
PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN C.M.A..No.587 of 2005 16.09.2009