This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.484 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal / Additional District and Sessions Court (Special Court under EC Act), Thanjavur.
2. It is a case of accident, causing injury, which took place on 11.02.2011 at about 03.30 p.m. near Papanasam Periya Pallivasal, on Kumbakonam to Thanjavur road.
3. It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that when the petitioner was travelling as a passenger in a tourist bus, bearing Registration No.TN 58M 4000 from Kumbakonam to Thanjavur, the bus bearing Registration No.TN 68 N0047, was driven by the driver, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tourist bus in which the petitioner was travelling. As a result, the petitioner sustained fracture on right hand and injuries all over his body and subsequently, took treatment at various hospitals.
4. The claimant filed an application in M.C.O.P.No.484 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal / Additional District and Sessions Court (Special Court under EC Act), Thanjavur, seeking compensation.
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and seven documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On the side of the respondent, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked.
6.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced on either side and also on appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN-68 N-0047 and therefore directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,65,330/-to the claimant as compensation.
7. Against which, the appellant/Respondent filed the present appeal to set aside the award of the Tribunal. Though the present appeal has been filed on various grounds, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant restricted his argument only on the ground of liability.
8.This Court heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.
9.The learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant disputed the said contention and he would draw the attention of this Court to the findings of the Tribunal, to Paragraph No.8 and wherein it has been discussed as follows:
8.k.rh.M.1 Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if efypy;> ?vjph;kDjhuhpd; NgUe;ij mjd; Xl;Leh; mjpNtfkhfTk;> ftdkpy;yhkYk;> Xl;b te;J Rw;Wyh NgUe;jpy; gazk; nra;Jnfhz;bUe;j kDjhuhpd; tyJ ifapy; tpgj;ij Vw;gl;L fhak; Vw;gl;ljhf? Kjy; vjph;khDjhuh; thfd Xl;Ldh; kPJ Fw;w tof;F gjpT nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. k.rh.M.2 kw;Wk; k.rh.M.3 Mtzkhd kUj;Jtkid rpfpr;ir tpgu mwpf;if efy;fspYk; thfd tpgj;jhy; fhak; Vw;gl;ljhf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,e;epiyapy; vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; thjpl;l mwpthh;e;j tof;fwpQhpd; thjj;jpy; kDjhuh; ftdk; ,y;yhky; jdJ tyJ ifia ePl;bf;nfhz;bUe;jjhy; jhd; tpgj;jpy; fhakile;Js;shh; vd;Wk;> tpgj;Jf;F kDjhuUk; xU fhuzk; vd;gjhf thjpLfpd;whh;. kDjhuh; jd;Dila FWf;F tprhuizapy; ,uz;L NgUe;JfSk; xd;iw xd;W fle;J nry;Yk;NghJ tpgj;J Vw;gl;lJ vd;Wk;> tpgj;jpy; tyJ ifapy; mbgl;lJ vd;Wk; tyJ ifiaj; jtpu NtW vq;Fk; jdf;F fhaq;fs; Vw;gltpy;iy vd;Wk; kDjhuUf;F Kd; ,Uf;ifapYk; gpd; ,Uf;ifapYk; mkh;e;jpUe;jth;fSf;F ve;jtpjkhd fhaKk; Vw;gltpy;iy vd;Wk; njhptpg;gijf; ftdj;jpy; nfhs;Sk;NghJ kDjhuh; NgUe;jpy; cl;fhh;e;jpUe;jNghJ jdJ tyJ ifia NgUe;Jf;F ntspNa itj;jpUe;jjhy; mbgl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ njspthfpwJ. NgUe;Jfs; xd;iw xd;W flf;Fk;NghJ ,U NgUe;JfSk; curpf;nfhz;bUe;jhy;> ,uz;L NgUe;JfSf;Fk; Nrjk; Vw;gl;bUf;Fk; vd;gNjhL NgUe;jpy; cl;fhh;e;jpUe;j gazpfSf;Fk; fhaq;fs; Vw;gLtjw;Fk; tha;g;G cs;sJ MfNt mt;thW NgUe;JfSf;Nfh. NgUe;jpy; gazk; nra;j kw;w gazpfSf;Nfh NrjNkh. fhaNkh Vw;glhjepiyapy;> tpgj;Jf;F kDjhuUk; xU fhuzk; vd;gjhf vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; $wg;gLk; $w;W Vw;ff;$bajhfNt cs;sJ. k.rh.M.1d; gb vjph;kDjhuh; NgUe;J Xl;Leh; kPJ Fw;wtof;F gjpT nra;ag;gl;Ls;sijAk; k.rh.1d; rhl;rpaj;ijAk; ftdj;jpy; nfhs;Sk;NghJ> tpgj;Jf;F kDjhuUk; xU fhuzk; vd;W jPh;khdpj;J> vjph;kDjhuh>; kDjhuUf;F 90 rjtpfpj ,og;gPl;ilf; nfhLf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;> kDjhuh; 10 rjtpfpj ,og;gPl;il Vw;Wf; nfhs;s Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; ,e;j gpur;rpidfSf;F jPh;T fhz;fpNwd;.
10.A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal has discussed in detail and considering the evidence of P.W.1 and also Ex.P.1, found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus and hence, directed the appellant/respondent, to pay the compensation to the claimant. While doing so by taking into account that the claimant has kept his right hand out, the Tribunal fixed 10 % liability on the injured claimant, which in my considered opinion is quite reasonable. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal and the same does not require interference at the hands of this Court.
11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 26.04.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.484 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal / Additional District and Sessions Court (Special Court under EC Act) Thanjavur is hereby confirmed. The appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. On such deposit being made, the 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, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Motor Accidents claims Tribunal / Additional District and Sessions Court / Special Court for EC Act, Thanjavur.
2. The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.