Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited vs M. Seetha rep. by their father and next friend V. Mani

C.S. Karnan, J.—The above appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Insurance Company, against the award and decree dated 15.12.2004

made in M.C.O.P. No. 4083 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, III Judge, Chennai.

The short facts of the case are as follows:

On 02.09.1998, at around 15.30 hours, the Petitioner was standing at the bus stop in front of ''Adayar Anandha Bhavan'' and at that point of time,

the Respondent''s Corporation bus, bearing Registration No. TN-01-N-1620, the driver had driven the vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against the Petitioner. Due to the said impact, the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the Claim Petition had been field against the

Respondent for a sum of Rs. 8 Lakhs with interest. The Respondent Transport Corporation had filed a counter statement and resisted the Claim

Petition. The Respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant. Actually, on 02.09.1998, at around 14.55 hours, the

Respondent Transport Corporation bus was proceeding from Parrys to Thiruvanmiyur. When the bus was stopped at Adayar O.T. bus stop, for

facilitating the passengers to board and alight, the Petitioner suddenly had run towards the bus and tried to board the bus. In the result, she had

fallen down. Further, the Respondent stated that the claim amount is an excessive one.

On pleading of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration, viz.,:

Who was responsible for the accident?

Who is liable to pay compensation?

If the claimant is entitled to receive compensation, what is the quantum of compensation?

On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined viz., father of the claimant, eyewitness and doctor. The claimant marked the

following documents, viz., Medical discharge summary, doctor''s report, medical bills series, hospital receipts, hospital discharge certificates,

photos with negative, First Information report, Sketch, disability certificate and X-ray. On the side of the Respondent, two witnesses were

examined, viz., the conductor and driver respectively.

P.W.1, had adduced evidence that, on 02.09.1998, at around 03.30 p.m., the Respondent bus dashed against his daughter on the L.B. Road

bus stop. In the result, his daughter had sustained bone fracture injuries on her left leg. Immediately, she had been admitted at Government General

Hospital, Chennai. In order to prove the accident, he had marked F.I.R. and Sketch, R.W.1 stated that on the date of accident, when he was

boarding the passengers in the bus, the minor girl attempted to board the bus and fell down on the floor. R.W.2, stated that after hearing the

whistle of the conductor, he had moved the bus. The minor Petitioner had invited the accident. P.W.1, further adduced evidence stating that at the

time of accident, his daughter was studying in the II standard. After the accident, the minor Petitioner had undergone treatment at Government

General Hospital, Chennai, from 02.09.1998 to 17.10.1998 and again from 30.01.1999 to 17.03.1999. In order to prove the same, he had

marked exhibits. Exs.P2, P4 and P3 are the medical records and expenses. P.W.3, the doctor, had stated that the claimant had sustained grievous

bone fracture injuries on her left thigh and also injury below her knee. The muscles of the injured portion of her leg has shrunk. The doctor

assessed her disability as 50%. On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 2,99,400/- with interest at

the rate of 9%.

Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant has filed the above present appeal.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 50,000/- towards medicine, Rs. 50,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.

50,000/- towards loss of income and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects and these are all on the higher side.

The learned Counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant left leg has totally been damaged and has become thin. The left leg has become

very grotesque. As such, the marriage prospects has been lost. This injury is of a permanent nature and cannot be cured. Due to the injuries, the

claimant feels discomfort in her movements. To prove the above, the learned Counsel has submitted photographs of the claimant.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award

of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant''s left leg below her knee has been totally damaged. The appearance of her

leg is grotesque and as such this Court is of the view that her marriage prospects has been lowered. The injuries are of a permanent nature and the

claimant feels uncomfortable in all her movements. Considering the age, education, duration of treatment, nature of injuries and attendant charges,

this Court finds the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal to be fair and equitable. Therefore, this Court confirms the Tribunal order. This

Court imposed a condition on 25.01.2007, the Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs with proportionate accrued interest. Now this Court

directs the Appellant to deposit the balance compensation of a sum of Rs. 99,400/- with accrued interest thereon, from the date of filing the claim

petition till the date of payment of compensation, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

It is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 4083

of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai, after filing necessary payment out application,

in accordance with law, subject to withdrawals if any.

In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree dated 15.12.2004, made in M.C.O.P.

No. 4083 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Small Causes Court Judge), chennai, is confirmed. Consequently,

connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.