Managing Director, Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Kuppusamy

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Pallavan Transport Corporation, aggrieved over the award of compensation of Rs. 19,000/- payable to the

respondent injured, has filed this appeal.

On 9.9.1989 at about 3.15 p.m., the claimant viz., Kuppusamy was riding on his cycle on his left side from south to north. During that time, the

bus belonging to the appellant Corporation came on the same direction and dashed against the cyclist, due to which, the claimant fell down, and

sustained grievous injuries.

Though the claim petition was filed for Rs. 50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 19,000/-.

While assailing the judgment impugned, Mr. Arul Murugan, the learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal is wrong on

both aspects viz., negligence and quantum.

In reply to the said submission, Mrs. N.B. Surekha, the learned Counsel for the respondent would point out that the materials produced before

the Tribunal through P.Ws. 1 to 3 and Exs. A1 to A4 would clearly reveal that the driver of the bus was negligent and the claimant would be

entitled to the award passed by the Tribunal.

I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through the records.

Regarding the accident, P.W. 1 has categorically stated that when he was proceeding from north to south in his cycle in the left side, the bus

came behind, in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the cyclist. On the other hand, R.W. 1,"" the driver would state that when a lorry was

overtaking the bus, the bus had to swerve to the left and that was how the accident took place and as such, he was not negligent.

On consideration of the materials produced by both the parties, the Tribunal found that the driver of the bus was negligent by rejecting his case.

Even assuming that the case of the driver is true, I do not think that he can escape the liability by saying that he was not negligent, since he had to

swerve the vehicle by turning to the left in order to give way to the lorry overtaking the same. The occurrence had taken place at 3.15 p.m. Just in

front of his bus a cycle goes, either he should not have given the way to the lorry till he crosses the cycle or he must have stopped the bus on the

left side in order to give way to the lorry. If that was done, the accident could have been averted. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the finding

of the Tribunal that the driver of the bus was alone negligent.

Even with regard to quantum, it cannot be contended that the award of Rs. 19,000/- as against the total claim of Rs. 50,000/- is on the higher

side. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has discussed various aspects and apportioned the amount towards various heads and concluded that the

claimant would be entitled to Rs. 19,000/-which in my view, a proper assessment.

At the end, Mr. Arul Murugan requested for reduction of the rate of interest from 15% to 12% by stating that normally the Courts would

impose only such rate. But, on the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent would cite the judgment reported in 1997 2 LW 575 .

Madheswaran and Anr. v. Rani and three Ors. in which the Apex Court has held that though in some cases the Court can impose 12%, when the

Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction by awarding 15% interest in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case, that finding need not be

disturbed. Therefore, the said request is also rejected. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. No costs.