AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein.
As against the award of Rs. 52,850/-, payable to Rajamani, the respondent herein, this appeal has been presented by the appellant, both on the ground of negligence and of quantum.
The claimant, respondent herein, is a Constable in ''Q'' Branch, CID Office, Pudukkottai. His native place is Kalanivasal. On 7.7.1992 at about 11.35 a.m., the claimant was riding on his Bajaj motor cycle, in order to go to hospital, alongwith one Ayyanar, the pillion rider, from North proceeding towards South. When he was coming near the junction, he attempted to go to the left side towards East, the bus belonged to the appellant-Corporation, coming from East, at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the rider of the motor cycle, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to hospital where treatment was given. He filed a claim petition seeking for the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
On the side of claimant, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A13 were marked.
On the side of the appellant-Corporation, the driver, R. W., 1 was examined. No document was marked on its side.
The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the materials available on record, concluded that the driver was negligent and the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 52,850/-. Hence, this appeal by the Transport Corporation.
Mr. Pandi, learned Counsel for the appellant, by taking me through the entire records, would vehemently contend that the evidence of P.W. 1, the claimant and P.W. 3, the pillion rider-eye witness, have been completely falsified by the contents of the F.I.R. which has been marked as Ex. A1 in the instant case and that at any rate, the amount awarded as compensation is highly excessive.
The learned Counsel for the respondent is heard.
It is mainly contended that the F.I.R. given by P.W. 3, the eyewitness, pillion rider, would make it clear that the claimant came from North to South and suddenly turned to left with a high speed and hit against the middle portion of the bus which was going towards the West, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and got into the rear wheel due to which, he sustained injuries on the leg and that therefore, no negligence could be attributed to the driver of the bus.
According to the Counsel for the, appellant, though P.Ws. 1 and 3 would state in the deposition that the front portion of the bus hit against the claimant''s motor cycle, the said statement cannot be accepted as trustworthy, because it is completely contrary to the contents of the FIR which is the earliest document. Though this argument looks attractive, I am riot able to countenance the same for the following reasons:
It is noticed from the records in the instant case that the FIR was given by P.W. 3 and the same was registered by Police, who in turn filed the charge sheet against the driver of the bus and the same was marked as Ex. A2. In the Ex. A1, FIR, it is stated as follows:
x x x.
A reading of the above statement would clearly show that the front portion of the bus hit against the motor cycle, as a result of which they fell down and, thereafter, the rear wheel of the bus ran over the motor cyclist, due to which Rajamani sustained injuries on the right hand and right leg.
P.W. 1, in his evidence, would stands in chief examination that when he came from North to South and turned left in order to go to East, after giving signal, slowly by changing the gear, the bus which came at a very high speed from East to West without sounding the horn, hit against him. In the cross-examination, he would state as follows:
x x x.
P.W. 3 also would state that "x x x." Therefore, it cannot be contended that the contents of the FIR are contrary to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3.
A complete reading of evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, FIR Exs. A1 and A2 Charge-sheet, would clearly show that there is a consistent stand taken by the witnesses with reference to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.
Admittedly, the width of the road is 100 feet. When the bus comes in the main road, especially, when it passes through the cross street in the junction, the driver of the bus must have a look on both left and right sides, in order to ascertain whether any vehicle or any person is coming to the main road, so that the accident could be avoided.
In the counter, it is stated that the claimant himself came rashly and negligently on the right side of the road and hit the rear portion of the vehicle. But, the suggestion put to the witnesses is that when the claimant and pillion rider saw the bus coming in the opposite direction, the pillion rider suddenly jumped out of the vehicle and due to that the claimant lost his control and fell down near the wheel of the bus. This has been denied by the witnesses. No such defence theory was put forward in the counter.
The Tribunal also, while discussing the said aspect, held that it is on the part of the claimant also to have a lookout by seeing the main road and verify whether any other vehicle comes in the opposite direction or not. However, on the basis of P.Ws. 1 to 3, the Tribunal held that the Claimant reduced the speed by changing the gear and after giving the signal, turned to the left side carefully. This finding, in my view, is quite correct because the materials are available to the said effect from the deposition of P.Ws. 1 to 3.
In regard to quantum, the Tribunal has considered the various aspects by referring the documents Ex. A2, the Wound Certificate, Exs. A5, A7, AS, the Medical Certificates, A9, the Salary Certificate and A12 Case Sheet, A13 X-ray, and come to the conclusion that the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 52,850/-, though the total claim made was Rs. 1,50,000/-.
It is seen from the evidence of P.W. 2, the Doctor that two fingers in the leg of the claimant have been amputated. He took treatment in the Government Hospital at Karaikudi and in the Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. Thereafter, he took treatment in the private hospitals also. Due to the injury, the permanent disability was certified to be 42%. The claimant is the Constable. Leg is very important for the Constable for performing his duties effectively. The Tribunal found that because of the disability, the promotion chances of the claimant have been lost. So, all these things have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and it has assessed the damages.
Though, in my view, the claimant would be entitled for some more amount, as he has lost the toe and another finger in the leg and he had been hospitalised for number of days, I do not propose to enhance the amount since there is no Cross Objection in this case. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal holding that the driver of the bus was negligent and the claimant was entitled to the compensation of Rs. 52,850/- has to be sustained.
In the result, the appeal which has no merits is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.