Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1180 (MAD)

Managing Director, Salem v. Panneerselvam

2021-03-30

V.M.VELUMANI

body2021
JUDGMENT : V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode.” 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award dated 18.09.2012 made in M.C.O.P. No. 210 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram. 3. The appellant is the 3rd respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 210 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram. The 1st respondent filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 15.12.2006. 4. According to 1st respondent, on 15.12.2006 at about 08.40 A.M., while he was traveling in the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 owned by 2nd respondent and insured with 3rd respondent-Insurance Company from Ulundurpet to Cuddalore on the Salem- Panruti Main Road near Anguchettipalayam Village, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30N-0119 belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation, which was coming in the opposite direction from Salem and caused the accident. In the accident, the 1st respondent sustained fracture and multiple grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, the 1st respondent was taken to Government Hospital, Cuddalore, where he has taken treatment for one week. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him against the appellant-Transport Corporation and respondents 2 and 3, being the owner and insurer of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 respectively. 5. The 2nd respondent-owner of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 6. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent. According to the 3rd respondent, the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383. There is delay in filing the complaint before the Police. The 1st respondent has not traveled in the bus owned by 2nd respondent at the time of accident. There is delay in filing the complaint before the Police. The 1st respondent has not traveled in the bus owned by 2nd respondent at the time of accident. The bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 owned by 2nd respondent was not having valid insurance policy, valid Registration Certificate, permit and the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. The driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation was solely responsible for the accident and hence, the appellant is only liable to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent. In any event, the liability has to be apportioned more on the part of the appellant-Transport Corporation. This respondent denied the age, avocation, income, nature of injuries, disability and period of treatment taken by the 1st respondent. The quantum of compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against the 3rd respondent. 7. The appellant-Transport Corporation filed separate counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent. According to the appellant, while the driver of the bus belonging to appellant was driving the same at a moderate speed by observing the traffic rules from Cuddalore to Salem, near Anguchettipalayam, the driver the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, dashed on the right side of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation and caused the accident. Therefore, the accident has occurred only due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation. The Pudupettai Police Station has registered a case against the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 in Crime No. 395/2006. Hence, the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent, being the owner and insurer of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 are liable to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent and the appellant-Transport Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the 1st respondent. The appellant-Transport Corporation denied the age, avocation, income, nature of injuries, disability and period of treatment taken by the 1st respondent. The quantum of compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. The appellant-Transport Corporation denied the age, avocation, income, nature of injuries, disability and period of treatment taken by the 1st respondent. The quantum of compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined himself as PW-1 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. The appellant-Transport Corporation and the 3rd respondent- Insurance Company did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 9. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that both the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 owned by 2nd respondent are equally responsible for the accident and directed the appellant and 3rd respondent to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 30,550/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. 10. To set aside the award dated 18.09.2012 made in M.C.O.P. No. 210 of 2007, the appellant-Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the Police have registered a case only against the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 in Crime No. 395 of 2006. The accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 owned by 2nd respondent. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have fixed entire negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 and ought not to have fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant. The respondent failed to prove his age, avocation and income. In the absence of any material evidence, a sum of Rs. 30,550/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the 1st respondent is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation and perused the entire materials on record. 13. In the absence of any material evidence, a sum of Rs. 30,550/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the 1st respondent is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation and perused the entire materials on record. 13. It is the case of the 1st respondent that while he was traveling in the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 owned by 2nd respondent and insured with 3rd respondent-Insurance Company from Ulundurpet to Cuddalore on the Salem-Panruti Main Road near Anguchettipalayam Village, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30N-0119 belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation, which was coming in the opposite direction from Salem and caused the accident. To prove the said contention, the 1st respondent examined himself as PW-1 and marked F.I.R. as Ex.P1, which was registered against the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 owned by 2nd respondent. It is the contention of the 3rd respondent- Insurance Company that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383. Further, the appellant-Transport Corporation contended that while the driver of the bus belonging to appellant was driving the same at a moderate speed by observing the traffic rules from Cuddalore to Salem, near Anguchettipalayam, the driver the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, dashed on the right side of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation and caused the accident. The 1st respondent while filing the claim petition has stated that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383. But, during the chief examination and cross examination he has categorically stated that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of both the buses belonging to 2nd respondent and appellant-Transport Corporation. Further, as per Exs.P2 and P3/Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, it is seen that both the buses were damaged. But, during the chief examination and cross examination he has categorically stated that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of both the buses belonging to 2nd respondent and appellant-Transport Corporation. Further, as per Exs.P2 and P3/Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, it is seen that both the buses were damaged. To disprove the evidence of PW-1, neither the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 nor the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation were examined by the 3rd respondent and appellant. The 3rd respondent and appellant did not examine any other independent witness to disprove the evidence of PW-1. As far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the F.I.R. was registered only against the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 and hence, entire negligence has to be fixed only on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 owned by 2nd respondent is concerned, the evidence on oath must be given more weightage than the materials on record. In the present case, PW-1 in his chief and cross examination has deposed that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of both the buses. To disprove the same, the 3rd respondent or the appellant has not examined any other witnesses. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-1, Exs.P2 and P3/Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report and failure on the part of the 3rd respondent and appellant for not examining any other independent witness to disprove the evidence of PW-1, held that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30W-1383 owned by 2nd respondent as well as on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation. The Tribunal has given cogent and valid reason for fixing the negligence. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 14. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the 1st respondent that in the accident he sustained injuries at left side fore head, nose, chest pain, teeth pain and multiple grievous injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital, Cuddalore, where he has taken treatment for one week. 14. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the 1st respondent that in the accident he sustained injuries at left side fore head, nose, chest pain, teeth pain and multiple grievous injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital, Cuddalore, where he has taken treatment for one week. To prove the nature of injuries sustained by him, he produced the wound certificate as Ex.P4. It is the further contention of the 1st respondent that at the time of accident he was aged 40 years, working as Junior Assistant at A.E.E.O. Primary Education Office, Nallur and was earning a sum of Rs. 8,312/- per month. To prove the avocation and income, he marked the salary certificate as Ex.P11. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries and treatment taken by the 1st respondent, awarded a sum of Rs. 16,550/- (Rs. 8,275/- x 2 months) towards loss of income for two months and the same is not excessive. The Tribunal considering the entire materials on record, has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,550/- as compensation to the 1st respondent, which is not excessive warranting interference by this Court. 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum of Rs. 30,550/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the 1st respondent, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company are directed to jointly and severally deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 210 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs.