This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.2017 of 2001 dated 15.06.2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (3rd Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli.
2.The case of the first respondent/claimant is that he was parked his power tiller in Salem-Trichy road near Tholurpatti on 19.02.2001 at about 3 A.M. about four kilometres from Thottiyam Police Station. The bus bearing Registration No.TN 45 N 1097, belonging to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, was driven by its driver/the second respondent herein in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the power tiller and caused serious damages to the power tiller. First Information Report No.45/2001, was registered against the driver of the Transport Corporation/second respondent before the Thottiyam Police Station. A mechanic examined the said ploughing machine is in irreparable condition. The owner of the machine/first respondent claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. He claimed a sum of Rs.85,000/- being the value of the said power tiller and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards as damages for deprivation of the use of the same aggregating to Rs.1,00,000/-.
3.The appellant had filed a counter and would deny the manner of the accident. Further, it is contended that the appellant's bus was proceeded towards East on the West to East road near Ezhurpatti, Samathuvapuram. The driver of the Transport Corporation saw a person driving a power tiller coming towards east on the Tar road. The driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport bus sounded the horn and attempted to overtake the power tiller. When the Transport Corporation bus was just five feet behind the power tiller, the driver of the power tiller found a pit on the road. In order to avoid the pit, the first respondent turned the power tiller to his right and he was knowing fully well that the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus was behind him, and dashed against the bus which was trying to overtake it. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport company submitted that the first respondent alone is responsible for the accident and he only drove the power tiller in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Therefore, the Transport company is not liable to pay compensation to the respondent.
4.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/petitioner examined three witnesses as P1-Muthusamy, P2-venkatesh and P3.R.Ravi and marked three documents as Ex.P.1-FIR copy Ex.P2- Power tiller sale deed document and Ex.P3-Estimation certificate On the side of the appellant R.1-MR.Gunasekaran (conductor), R.2-Mr.Seenivasan and R.3-Mr.Raghupathi Raghavan were marked to prove their contention. But no documents were marked.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side and also appreciating the evidence on record awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
6.Against which, the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8.The learned counsel for the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation would submit that the Tribunal ought to have held that the first respondent/claimant was responsible for the accident and the Transport Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation. The Transport Company would further submit that the damage to the power tiller was very minimal and it could have been repaired for just Rs.10,000/-. He contended that the damaged parts of the power tiller was not assessed by the Transport Vehicle Inspector. He submitted that the first respondent is not the owner of the power tiller and also no document was produced to prove the ownership of the vehicle.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant would submit that the accident had occurred only due to the act of the appellant's bus driver, due to which, the first respondent/claimant power tiller sustained damages and even though the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is less, the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant did not seek for any enhancement of the compensation.
10.This Court has perused the materials available on records. It is seen from that the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the original owner Meenakshiammal was not examined as witness and PW.3. Mr.Ravi, stated that the Meenakshiammal was the owner of the power tiller and the said vehicle was in the custody of the said claimant and there is sale deed which has been marked as Ex.A2. RW3 Mr. Raghupathiragavan stated that he is the person who drafted the said document Ex.A2 i.e is the sale deed document. He would submit that Muthusamy had given Rs.85,000/-to one Meenakshiammal and he has witnessed the same. It is proved that the owner of the power tiller is the claimant at the time of the accident. The bus conductor Mr.Gunasekaran was examined as RW1. He deposed that one lorry had already hit the power tiller and later the bus had dashed on the power tiller. It is seen that the driver of the bus or the conductor has not given any police complaint before the Corporation or before the police. There was no explanation or information given to the department and also the driver of the bus was not examined. The version of the Transport Corporation is not to be accepted and since the power tiller belongs to the claimant, the Corporation is liable to pay the compensation. The claimant has stated that he needs to spend Rs.1,00,000/- for the repairing of the said power tiller. There was no other document has been produced to show the value of the said power tiller.
11.The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that just compensation of Rs.50,000/- can be paid to the said claimant. The claimant himself would submit that he purchased the same from one Meenakshiammal for a amount of Rs.85,000. There was no document produced by the claimant that the power tiller was a registered vehicle or not. It is proved whether the power tiller was not registered before the RTO Office. Hence the RTO Officer did not inspect the vehicle. The claimant produced the value of the damages of the power tiller. But it is a private mechanic quotation. The quotation stating that the cost of the damages is Rs.1,03,000/- which is not accepted by this Court, since it is not from an approved mechanic.
12.Even though various discussions have been held regarding the status of the first respondent/claimant, whether he was a owner, there was no evidence put forth by the appellant regarding the same. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the first respondent was the owner and as per the documents produced, he has to be treated as a claimant and the appellant/ Transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation.
13.In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
14.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award made in M.C.O.P.No.2017 of 2001, dated 15.06.2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (3rd Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli, is hereby confirmed. Coming to Cross Objection, the award passed by the Tribunal dated 15.06.2006 in M.C.O.P.No.2017 of 2001 in disallowing the claim of damages of Rs.50,000/-, in the considered opinion of this Court is illegally sustainable and the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, Cross Objection is dismissed. The appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.50,000/-, with accrued interests and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited and on such deposit being made, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The learned IIIrd Additional Subordinate Judge The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.