Managing Director vs S. Jagadish

V. Dhanapalan, J.—This appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Court), Salem, dated 28.02.2011 made in M.C.O.P. No.7 of 2009 wherein, as against the claim of the respondent/claimant for Rs.25 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded Rs.18,81,308/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

Before the Tribunal, the respondent-claimant stated that on 14.03.2008 around 8.40 p.m., when he was riding TVS-50 bearing Registration No.TN-31-O- 2623 along with the deceased Balakrishnan, son of the claimants in the connected M.C.O.P. No.1363 of 2008, from Ayothiapattinam to Chinnagoundapuram on the extreme left side of the road, near Chinnagoundapuram Division Road, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-21-N- 1041 belonging the appellant-Transport Corporation came from East to West, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the TVS-50, due to which, the deceased Balakrishnan and the injured claimant Jagadeesan sustained multiple injuries and they were taken to Government MKMC Hospital, Salem, and the said Balakrishnan died on the same day. The injured claimant (respondent herein) was admitted as in-patient in Government MKMC Hospital, Salem for three days and then shifted to Vinayaga Missions Hospital, Salem, where he took treatment from 17.03.2008 to 17.08.2008. As he suffered severe injuries on his head and scapula, he is not able to recognise what is going on around him and he is not in proper consciousness and hence, he is represented by his father. The injured claimant was aged about 19 years at the time of accident and working as a Cleaner in S.Kumar Roadways and earned Rs.5,000/- p.m. and daily batta of Rs.100/-. Hence, the injured claimant, represented by his father, has filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25 lakhs from the appellant-Transport Corporation.

The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement before the Tribunal denying the age, avocation, income, treatment, disability and the dependency of the injured claimant and also the manner in which the accident took place. It is their averment that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant and not due to the driver of the appellant- Transport Corporation. The claimant was not holding any valid driving licence. The claimant failed to implead the owner and the insurer of the TVS-50 and hence, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Transport Corporation is not at all liable to pay the compensation, which is claimed excessive.

The appellant-Transport Corporation also filed additional counter statement by disputing the spelling of the names of the claimant and his father. The medical bills issued in the name of C.Jagadeesan are not correct and the claimant filed the petition for unlawful gains and the medical bills are not genuine and created to support the claim.

The Tribunal disposed of the claim petition filed by the respondent-claimant, along with the claim petition filed by the parents of the deceased Balakrishnan, pertaining to the same accident. Before the Tribunal, on the side of claimant, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-29 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no document was marked.

On a consideration of the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus is responsible for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving and the owner and insurance company of the TVS-50 are not necessary parties for adjudication and found that the appellant-Transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation and ultimately, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,81,308/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation, under the following heads:

Challenging the above compensation, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal on various grounds.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

Though major challenge has been made in this appeal by the Transport Corporation with regard to the attendant charges and future medical expenses, while considering the nature of injuries suffered by the respondent-claimant, which he is suffering even today and the manner in which they have been highlighted upon, it is seen that the respondent-injured claimant is in semiconscious stage, totally immobilised, unable to speak, eyes are opened and standing at one point, eye laces are not functioning, unable to fold his hands and legs, has no sense of passing urine and nature''s call. It is also evident that P.W.4 Doctor who examined the claimant and issued disability certificate and who assessed the total permanent disability of the injured claimant at 90%, deposed that minimum two persons have to attend the claimant and the father and mother of the injured claimant are not attending their routine work. In this connection, it is worthwhile to notice the deposition of P.W.4 Doctor, which has been quoted by the Tribunal, as follows:

In this background, it is seen that the physical stature of the injured had been shattered and reduced to a vegetable extract. The unfortunate injured claimant was produced before the Tribunal on two occasions and the Tribunal visualised his hardship and based on the medical investigations test reports and the treatment records, the Tribunal found that the permanent disability was correctly assessed by the Doctor at 90%. The Tribunal found that the claimant requires continuous treatment and physiotherapy and accordingly awarded the compensation under various heads as indicated above, by adopting rationale approach, which is to the extent possible in respect of the injures suffered by the claimant. In the absence of any cross-appeal by the respondent-claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the above award of the Tribunal. As against the claim of Rs.25 lakhs, the Tribunal has only awarded Rs.18,81,308/-. The award of the Tribunal for attendant expenses at Rs.3 lakhs and for future medical expenses, at Rs.1,50,000/-, is definitely a financial assistance to the injured and his family, that too in the case of the injured like the one on hand where the condition is really sympathetic and pathetic. When that is the position, we could not interfere with the award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we confirm the award of the Tribunal and dismiss this appeal filed by the Transport Corporation. During the pendency of this appeal, it is stated that the entire award amount had been deposited by the appellant-Transport Corporation. The respondent-claimant shall withdraw the amount deposited, along with accrued interest, before the Tribunal, without any formal petition and the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the respondent claimant expeditiously. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.