AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Swamikkannu, J.—This is an appeal filed by the first respondent-minor Rajam, represented by father and guardian Neelakandan,
Proprietor, Anandan Bus Service, against the Award passed in C.P. No. 293 of 1979 on 291- 1981 along with C.P. No. 162 of 1979 by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Third Additional Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore, finding that Ramaswamy petitioner/first respondent herein is
entitled to recover a compensation of Rs.9,000/-. The Tribunal observed that during the period of treatment, the injured would have suffered much
pain and suffering and as such a compensation of Rs.3,000/- is just and adequate. It is also held that the injured due to malunion of the bone has
suffered permanent disability and as such a compensation of Rs.6,000/- for the same was awarded. Thus, it was held that the first respondent
herein was entitled to a cover a total compensation of Rs.9,000/-.
The petitioner/first respondent herein (in C. P. No. 293 of 1979),. aged about 50 years is an agriculturist in Thondankurichi village earning about
Rs.100/- per month. On 2-6-1978 at about 1.15 p.m., both the first respondent herein as well as the petitioner in C.P. No. 162 of 1979 were
traveling in the bus TNF-405 belonging to the appellant herein and insured with the second respondent herein. When it was coming near Uchimedu
village in Kallakurichi Vridhachalam Road, it was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed against a road side tamarind tree as a result
of which both of them sustained injuries. The first respondent herein sustained fracture in his right upper arm, internal wound in chest and other
injuries on his fingers. Even after treatment in Government Hospital, Kallakurichi and in the headquarters hospital at Cuddalore as an in-patient for
17 days and also in the Jimper Hospital at Pondicherry for about four months, still he is not able to do any work with his right arm and especially
agricultural work. Therefore, the first respondent herein claimed a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
The appellant herein in its counter before the Tribunal contended that on a latent mechanical defect, the steering wheel went out of control all of
a sudden and could not'' be controlled by the driver. Thus, the accident had happened not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, but due to
an act of God for which no one can be held liable.
The appellant herein denied the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the first respondent herein in the accident and the permanent disability
pleaded by him. The compensation amounts claimed are excessive.
The second respondent herein in its counter before the Tribunal contended that when the bus was proceeding in Kallakurichi Vridhachalam
Road which is a narrow one, a boy ran across the road and in order to save him the bus had to be swerved to the side of the road. Then accident
had happened which is entirely due to an act of God and not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus.
The following points were framed by the Tribunal for determination
(I) Whether the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the bus TNF 405?
(2) Whether the delay in filing the petitions may be condoned?
(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, for how much?
(4) To what relief are the parties entitled?
The first respondent herein examining himself as P.W. 2 deposed that he is residing in Thondankurichi village. He is an agriculturist owning about
one acre of land. He is working as a jelly maistry employing labourers out of which he would get about Rs.300/- p.m., About two years prior to
himself deposing before the Tribunal, one day he got into Anandan Bus Service belonging to the appellant herein at Kallakurichi at about 12.30
pm. to go to Veppur. When the bus was coming near Uchimedu village about 1 p.m ., very fastly west to I east, it turned towards left side and
dashed against a tamarind tree on the northern side of the road. He fell down and sustained a fracture below his right shoulder and also other
multiple injuries on his chest and fingers. At first he was taken to Kallakurichi hospital where he was given first aid and afterwards treatment in
Government Hospital, Cuddalore and again at Gorimedu Hospital. Even after treatment, he is not able to do his work with his right hand. He
prayed for a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. In his cross-examination he has deposed that he was sitting in the long seat near the front entrance of
the bus. When the accident took place, he did not know where the conductor and checker were. It is true that the fractured bones, have United
together properly, he is able to do all works and he is deposing now falsely with a view to claim higher compensation.
It is common ground that the bus TNF 405 plying between Kallakurichil and Vridhachalam dashed against a road-side tree on the left side near
Uchimedu village at about 1.15 p.m., on 2-6-1978 in which the first respondent herein and another sustained injuries. While the first respondent
herein contended that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, the appellant herein contended that it had happened due
to a latent mechanical defect in the steering rod of the bus, as a result of which it went out of control and dashed against the tree. Thus, we find that
the appellant herein admitted the accident, but would plead a latent mechanical defect in the steering rod as defence for the same. But they have
not let in any evidence to substantiate the same. The burden is heavily on the appellant herein to show that the said fact of steering wheel going out
of control is not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, but due to a latent mechanical defect. It is not enough that he had pleaded the same in
the statement, but he should have also added that the said latent mechanical defect could not be detected in spite of periodical checking and
servicing. But the appellant herein has not pleaded the same. The appellant herein has not also let in any evidence to substantiate the same. So the
said plea cannot be accepted and the same was rightly rejected by the Tribunal.
Ex. A-1 certified extract from the first information report shows that it has been given by Kannan, the driver of bus TNF 405 and the relevant
portion therein reads as follows : -
(Extract being in Tamil language is not reproduced .............Ed.)
Thus, it is seen that he has simply stated therein that at the place of accident, the bus dragged to the left side and he applied brake, but did not
work and the bus dashed against a tamarind tree on the left side of the road. But he has not stated therein that the bus dragged to the left side due
to the steering wheel going out of control. Ex. A-2 certified copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector''s report gives a list of damages caused to the bus in
Col. 9. But nowhere it has been given there that the settling rod of the bus went out of control. Ex. A-3 certified copy of judgment in C.C. No.
102 of 1979 in the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court at Ulundurpet shows that the accused driver Kannan had pleaded guilty for offences
under Ss. 279 and 338 I.P.C., and he had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. Thus, taking the entire evidence available before the Court
we find that the driver of the vehicle in question had driven the bus with culpable negligence and rashness. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard
is correct and the same is confirmed.
P. W. 2 the first respondent herein has stated that in the accident he sustained a fracture in his right shoulder bone and other multiple injuries on
his chest and thumb. After first aid in Kallakurichi hospital, he took treatment as an in-patient in Cuddalore Hospital for 12 days. After discharge, 5
days later, as he felt painful, he got himself admitted in Government headquarters hospital at Cuddalore again and took treatment for another five
days. Even after that, he took treatment in Gorimedu Hospital as an outpatient for four months. Even now, he is not able to lift his right hand above
the shoulder or do any work with that hand. In his crow examination he would depose that it is not true that the fractured bones have joined
completely, he is able to do all works properly at present and his statements to the contrary that he is not able to do any work is false and it is
being made by him only with a view to claim higher compensation. Ex. A 14 case sheet shows that the first respondent herein sustained the
following injuries in the accident : -
A lacerated injury 1/2"" X 1/4"" X 1/4"" in the back of left middle finger;
A deformity- of right arm at the middle and suspicion of fracture shaft humerus. Referred to the Government headquarters hospital, Cuddalore.
X-rays disclosed comminuted fracture mid shaft of right humerus and that he was given treatment in the Government, hospital from 2-6-1978 to
13-6-1978 and was discharged. Ex. A-18 shows that he took treatment in Jipmer Hospital from 21-6-1978 to 11-8-1978. Thus, the documents
show that he took treatment for a period of 3 months and 9 days i.e., from 2-6-1978 to 11-8-1978. P.W. 3 Dr. Thiagarajan has deposed that he
examined P. W. 2 on 4-8-1980 for complaints of pain in his right shoulder and difficulty in movement and the x-ray revealed manumitted fracture
shaft of right humerus. P.W. 3 is of the opinion that pain and limitation of rights Wulder movements are due to malunion of the fractured shaft of
right humerus. These complaints are likely to aggravate as the age advances. He estimated the disability at about 30% and Ex., A. 22 is the
disability certificate given by him. In his cross-examination P.W. 3 had deposed that on the third day of putting of P.O.P. cast, X-ray is usually
taken. It would show whether the fractured bones have been set properly or improperly. Usually check Xray is taken two weeks after P.O.P.
cast. Ex. A-14 shows fracture of humerus, manipulation, Le., setting right of the fractured bones was done to P.W. 2 on 7-6-1978 cuff and dollar
were applied. He saw him for the first, time only on 4-8-1980. He had not seen him before. He did not also know where he took any treatment
earlier. If it is suggested that P.W. 2 was in a proper condition from the date of discharge from the hospital i.e., on 13-6-1978 as to his
appearance before him on 14-8-1980 that he did not know it is not true that he is perfectly normal, now and is not suffering from any permanent
disability at all. Ex. A-15 and Ex. A-16 show comminuted fracture in the mid shaft of right humerus. Ex. A-17 has not disclosed, any fracture at all.
So the first respondent here in had sustained only one fracture in his right humerus bone. Thus the medical evidence showed that the first
respondent herein took treatment in various hospitals from 2-6-1978 to 11-8-1978, During the said period of treatment, he would have suffered
much pain and suffering and therefore the compensation of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under that head is just and reasonable and the
same is confirmed. Ex. A-24 shows maluhion of right humerus bone, which would certainly cause him permanent disability in using the same.
Therefore, the compensation of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for disability is quite adequate and reasonable and the same is hereby
confirmed. Therefore, the award of Rs.9,000/- passed by the Tribunal with respect to the claim made in C.P. No. 203 of 19179 by the first
respondent herein is correct, just and adequate and the same is confirmed.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant herein that the petition preferred by the first respondent herein before the Tribunal does
not contain particulars as against the various items of claims contemplated in the form. In this regard the decision reported in Seethamma v.
Benedict D''Sa, AIR 1967 Mys 11 is relied and the following passage which occurs at page 13 runs as follows :-
It appears to me that the form which is prescribed for the presentation of a claim was mechanically filled up by the, claimants in the belief that
since rashness and negligence and other particulars had already been set out in the notice preceding the presentation of the claim petition, it was not
necessary to reiterate those allegations again. To my mind, the language of the form is such as to mislead a claimant in that way. The 22nd column
should require the claimant to state the grounds on which the respondents are sought to be made liable for compensation instead of merely asking
him to give any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim.
The form prescribed by the Rules is to my mind both inadequate and misleading. It asks the claimant to state many things without requiring him to
state the really essential facts supporting the claim. The 22nd column is the only column against which those material facts could be stated, but, that
column which speaks of ''any other information that may assist'' ''the disposal of the claim'', cannot be comprehended as a requisition for facts
creating a right to compensation. The language of that column appears to be in the nature of an invitation to state other subsidiary information which
the claimant might consider useful to him. So the prescribed form is a poor substitute for a plaint and there can be no rational reason for insistence
on a pleading through its columns. A claim for compensation for death or injury which should be supported by a statement and proof of facts which
create a right to it, should be allowed to be made through a properly prepared pleading such as a plaint produced before the ordinary Courts, and,
not through the obscure columns of an imperfect form such as the one prescribed by the Rules. It is however, unnecessary to say more about this
in this appeal"".
Rule 3 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1961 reads as follows: -
Applications: (1) Every application for payment of compensation made u/s 110-D shall be made in the form appended to these rules and shall
be accompanied by the fee prescribed therefore in Rule 20.
A careful reading of the observations
Where the application is not made within time state the cause thereof :
Merely on the ground that the details required in Col. 21-A, parts I and 11 against each and every subject, such as loss of earnings, partial loss of
earnings, etc., were given, it cannot be held that the failure on the part of the first respondent herein to fill up these columns in Col. 21-A in the
claim petition disentitle the first respondent herein from claiming compensation under the Act. It is seen that as against Col. 2 1-A a comprehensive
amount of compensation has been claimed. The first respondent herein examined himself as P.W. 1. Nothing has been elicited from him on behalf
of the appellant herein as to why he has not chosen to fill up the columns giving details. On the other hand, we find that P.W. 1 has spoken about
the various claims made by him amounting to Rs.10,000/- comprehensively in his chief-examination. It is a well established principle of law that the
failure of a person seeking remedy in a court of law should not held as not entitled to get his legal claim on the ground of failure to mention under
what provision of law he has piloted the pray by way of a petition or a suit . or any other proceeding. No doubt ignorance of law is no excuse, but
that does not mean that each citizen of the great Bharat has to acquaint himself with the relevant provisions. It is for the Court to apply, its mind
under what provision of law relief can be granted for the prayer that has been made together with the details for such a prayer by the claimant or a
citizen seeking relief Bearing this broad principle of law, we find that the contention raised in this regard by the learned counsel for the appellant
herein cannot be upheld. No other point has been raised on behalf of the appellant herein. The Tribunal in the decision in AIR 1967 Mys 11 as
well as R. 3 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1%1 do not help the appellant herein for upholding his point as tenable. In Column 22
of the claim petition, the first respondent herein has given the following version :-
The petitioner was not able to get the address of the owner of the vehicle and the address of the Insurance Company. So there is a delay of 310
days and it is prayed that the delay may be excused. Amended as per I.A.......... /81, dt.12-4-81.
had applied its mind and had come to the correct conclusion both with respect to the liability as well as the quantum of compensation and the same
are confirmed. This Court does not find any ground in the appeal. There is no merit in the appeal.
Hence the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.