Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3865 (MAD)

The Managing Director v. Panchalai

2008-10-23

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

body2008
Judgment :- This appeal is filed at the instance of the Transport Corporation against the award dated 10.02.2003 made in M.C.O.P.No.493 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District. 2. The case of the parties before the tribunal in brief is as follows:- (a) On 13.05.1999 the claimant boarded in the offending bus bearing Regn.No. TN 23 N 888 belonging to the appellant transport Corporation, bound to Vandavasi from Kaamakkoor at about 2.30 p.m. and when the bus was proceeding in between Ayilavadi Koot Road and Koviloor Koot Road, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly turned towards mud road which resulted in the accident and in that impact the claimant sustained injuries and was rushed to the hospital. The accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent and the appellant transport Corporation is liable to compensate the claimant reasonably. Therefore, this petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the appellant transport corporation together with interest. (b) The appellant transport corporation resisted the claim of the claimant and contended that the driver of the bus drove the bus observing due rules and regulations from Arani to Melmaruvathur and when the bus was proceeding near the Temple at Aailavadi, the driver of the bus, in order to avert head-on collision with the on coming bus belonging to the Corporation applied sudden brake which resulted in dragging on the bus towards mud road and the claimant sustained only simple injuries. The driver of the bus was no way responsible for the accident. In any event, the compensation claimed in the petition is exorbitant. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. .3. The Tribunal after having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record had passed an award of Rs.30,000/-with interest at 9% p.a. as against the claim of Rs.50,000/- This appeal is preferred by the Transport Corporation questioning the finding as to the negligence as well the quantum of compensation. The claimants who is the respondent herein did not prefer any appeal or cross objection for enhancement of compensation. 4. I heard both Mr.G.Muniratnam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant transport Corporation and Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The claimants who is the respondent herein did not prefer any appeal or cross objection for enhancement of compensation. 4. I heard both Mr.G.Muniratnam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant transport Corporation and Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant transport Corporation would submit that without any basis, the tribunal had come to a conclusion on its own that the driver of the bus alone was responsible for the accident; whereas the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident and in fact, in order to avert the major head-on collision with the oncoming bus he applied sudden brake which resulted in dragging on the bus towards mud road and thereafter, the bus fell into a ditch and there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. He would further submit that claimant has failed to prove that she sustained disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident and tribunal was wrong in awarding a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation towards the injuries sustained in the accident and for loss of income, when there was no evidence to show as to the extent of disability sustained by the claimant and also in the absence of proof of loss of income. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent would on the other hand submit that the tribunal had rightly held that the driver of the bus alone was responsible for the accident and rightly quantified the compensation at Rs.30,000/-which is just and reasonable and the same does not require any in interference. .7. I considered the submissions made on either side. A careful perusal of the available oral and documentary evidence would go to show that the claimant was traveling in the offending bus at the time of accident and there was no negligence on her part and the driver of the offending bus claimed that in order to avert the head-on-collision with the on coming bus, he applied sudden brake which resulted in the accident. The learned Judge of the tribunal rejected the evidence of the driver and held that the Corporation failed to establish that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The learned Judge of the tribunal rejected the evidence of the driver and held that the Corporation failed to establish that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Further more, the evidence of the driver would go to show that he was driving the bus in an uncontrollable speed that is why he could not stop the bus even after applying the brakes. Therefore, the appellant Corporation can not dispute the finding of the tribunal as to the rash and negligence and the finding of the tribunal as to the negligence on the part of the of the driver of the appellant transport Corporation stand maintained. 8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant transport corporation vehemently contended that the claimant had sustained only simple injuries and taking into the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the total compensation of Rs.30,000/-awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side. 9. I perused Ex.A.2 Wound Certificate which would go to show that the claimant had sustained totally three injuries. On a overall consideration of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.2 Wound Certificate would show that the claimant had sustained injuries and she was treated only as out patient. No doubt, due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, the claimant would have suffered pain and sufferings. However, the award of Rs.18,000/-towards loss of income granted by the tribunal is not supported by any material. At best, on taking into consideration of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road accident, a just and reasonable sum of Rs.10,000/- could be awarded towards pain and sufferings suffered by her due to the three injuries sustained on her face which includes damage caused to her teeth. There is no proof as to the loss of income. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards temporary loss of earnings. Further, the petitioner has not sustained any permanent disability. However, on taking into consideration of totality of circumstances and the injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that another sum of Rs.2,000/-towards transport charges and a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards extra nutrition and medical charges could be awarded to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has not sustained any permanent disability. However, on taking into consideration of totality of circumstances and the injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that another sum of Rs.2,000/-towards transport charges and a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards extra nutrition and medical charges could be awarded to the petitioner. In any event, the petitioner, is therefore, entitled to only a total compensation of Rs.15,000/- as against the claim of Rs.50,000/-and the award passed by the tribunal granting a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the petitioner is on the higher side and the same is liable to modified accordingly. 10. The head-wise details of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled are furnished here below:- TABLE 11. For the reasons discussed above, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed partly without cost and the award passed by the tribunal granting a sum of Rs.30,000/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till date of realisation is modified to the extent indicated above and the award of the tribunal is accordingly reduced to a sum of Rs.15,000/- with interest as directed by the tribunal and in other respects the award of the tribunal shall stand maintained. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation that the entire amount has been deposited before the tribunal with interest and the petitioner had already withdrawn 50% of the award amount with accrued interest from the said deposit. Since this Court has reduced the award to the extent indicated above, the appellant transport corporation is entitled to withdraw the remaining amount from the deposit in excess of the compensation awarded by this Court.