The Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 18.1.2001 passed in M.C.O.P.No.180 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai.
2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 25.9.1997. The injured claimant Basheera, aged 39 years, was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, it hit a stationary bus. In that accident the claimant lost 4 teeth in the lower jaw and three teeth in the upper jaw. The lip was also torn and stitched. She was treated at Government General Hospital, Chennai and thereafter at private hospital. She filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.70,000/- for the injury suffered in the accident.
3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. One A.Pushparaj, Sub Inspector of police was examined as P.W.2. Dr.T.S.Kalkoora, was examined as P.W.3. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked, the details of which, as per the order of the Tribunal, are as follows:-
Ex.A-1 series are the O.P. Chits, Ex.A-2 is the medical receipt, Ex.A-3 series are the medical bills, Ex.A-4 series are the medical prescriptions, Ex.A-5 series are the medical prescriptions, Ex.A-6 is the copy of FIR, Ex.A-7 is the rough sketch and Ex.A-8 is the disability certificate.
On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation.
4. The Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was rash and negligent in driving of the bus and was responsible for the accident, in which the claimant suffered injuries and consequently, the liability to compensate the injured claimant was fixed on the appellant transport corporation. Such finding of the Tribunal is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed.
5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence, age, period of treatment, nature of injury suffered by the claimant and the disability assessed at 35%, granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 12% per annum:-
Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Disability assessed at 35% Rs.35,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 3,000/-
6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the rate of interest at 12% granted by the Tribunal is higher. Therefore, the rate of interest is to be reduced.
7. While going through the award of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation or the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal for the following reasons:-
(i) The accident in this case happened on 25.9.1997.
(ii) Meagre amount was granted towards pain and suffering, extra nutrition expenses and transport expenses. No amount was granted towards attender charges. For replacement of teeth, no amount has been granted. Therefore, any amount accrued by way of higher interest, it can be adjusted on one or other head as above.
(iii) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation granted by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.39,839.25 does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% as the accident in this case happened in the year 1997.
8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.2.2009 Index : No Internet : Yes ts To The Registrar, Small Causes Court, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chennai. R.SUDHAKAR,J. ts Judgment in C.M.A.No.384 of 2009 19.2.2009