AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—These appeals are preferred by the Appellant-Transport Corporation against the judgment and Decree dated
27.08.2003 made in M.C.O.P. Nos. 1158, 1162 and 1159 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Madurai.
As these appeals are filed against the common judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal and also the appeals arise out of a common
accident, they are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
All the three injured claimants met with motor traffic accident on 02.11.1998 at about 9.45hrs. They travelled as passengers in a bus belonging to
the Appellant Transport Corporation bearing Registration No. TN-59-N-0737. The said bus was proceeding from South to North direction in the
Madurai-Melur Main Road in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed. At that time another private bus belonging to the second
Respondent in all the appeals bearing Registration No. TN-59-8889 was coming from the opposite direction and both the buses are colluded each
other. Due to the said impact, the injured-claimants as well as the passengers in the bus sustained grievous injuries. The claimant in C.M.A. No. 43
of 2005 claimed a sum of Rs. 70,000/-as compensation. The claimant in C.M.A. No. 44 of 2005 claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-as
compensation. The claimant in C.M.A. No. 45 of 2005 claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-as compensation before the Tribunal. The Appellant-
Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver bus belonging to the Appellant-Transport Corporation or the
driver of the private bus belonging to the second Respondent?
Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation, if so how much? and from whom?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
drivers of the bus belonging to the Appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the driver of the private bus, which is insured with the third
Respondent-Insurance Company and accordingly the liability was fixed at 50% each and awarded the compensation as follows:
C.M.A. No. 43 of 2005:
The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-with interest at 9%p.a. from the date of claim petition. The details of the compensation
are as under:
For loss due to 18% disability Rs. 15,000/-
For pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
For loss of earning capacity Rs. 5,000/-
For transport and extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs. 30,000/-
C.M.A. No. 44 of 2005:
The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-with interest at 9%p.a. from the date of claim petition. The details of the compensation
are as under:
For loss due to 18% disability Rs. 15,000/-
For pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
For loss of earning capacity Rs. 5,000/-
For transport and extra
nourishment Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs. 30,000/-
C.M.A. No. 45 of 2005:
The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-with interest 9%p.a. from the date of claim petition. The details of the compensation are
as under:
For loss due to 22% disability Rs. 15,000/-
For pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
For loss of earning capacity Rs. 7,000/-
For transport and extra
nourishment Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs. 32,000/-
Aggrieved by that award, the Appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal in respect of their liability of 50%. It is pertinent to
note that the Tribunal has passed a common order for 13 cases and it is fairly submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that
they have not filed any appeal in respect of other M.C.O. Ps. It is also pertinent to note that the third Respondent-Insurance Company has not
filed any appeal in respect of their 50% disability.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
and vehemently contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and also without any basis and justification. Therefore,
the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.
Learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondents-claimants in all the appeals has submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant
materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion that both the drivers of the vehicles were equally negligent and therefore, the
Tribunal has correctly fixed the liability on both the drivers and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation in all these appeals. Hence the
order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.
Heard the counsel and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimants, the injured claimants were examined. P.W.2 is
Veeranan, the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 1158 of 1999. P.W.2 is Karupayee, the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 1162 of 1999. P.W.12 is
Gnanasundari, the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 1159 of 1999. P.W.14 is Dr. Chinnadurai. P.W.15 is Dr. Ganesan who examined the claimants. On
behalf of the claimants, the documents Exs.P.1 to P.49 were marked. On behalf of the Appellant-Transport Corporation R.W.1-M. Sowriraj and
R.W.2-P. Tamilselvan were examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. After considering the above oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both
the vehicles and 50% liability was fixed on each of them. It is question of fact and it is based on valid materials and evidence. Therefore, the same
is confirmed.
C.M.A. No. 43 of 2005 in M.C.O.P. No. 1158 of 1999:
The injured claimant was 55 years old at the time of the accident. He was an agricultural coolie. In his evidence, it is stated that he was earning a
sum of Rs. 100/-per day. Further it is stated that it was the drivers of both the vehicles caused the accident and they were charge sheeted by the
Melur B-1 Police Station in Cr. No. 1056 of 1998 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. Due to the accident, the injured-claimant sustained
a fracture in nosal bone and also other injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government Rajaji Hospital,
Madurai and then Government Hospital, Melur and later, he was admitted in Selviram Trust Clinic, Alagarkoil Road, Melur. The doctor who
examined the injured claimant, determined the disability at 18%. Ex.P.44 is the Disability Certificate. In the evidence of the doctor, it is stated that
because of the accident, the injured claimant is not able to do his work as before. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal has correctly arrived a sum of Rs. 15,000/-towards loss due to 18% disability. It is very reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed.
The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards loss of earning capacity and a sum of
Rs. 5,000/-towards transport and extra nourishment. There is no dispute that the injured-claimant was in the hospital and has taken treatment in
various hospital. Hence, the above amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the above mentioned heads are very reasonable and hence they are
confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and prevailing rate
of interest during that period, the interest rate at 9%p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed.
The findings given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal
so as to warrant interference. It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with
law and hence the same is confirmed.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
C.M.A. No. 44 of 2005 in M.C.O.P. No. 1162 of 1999:
The injured claimant was 45 years old at the time of the accident. She was an agricultural coolie. In his evidence, it is stated that she was
earning a sum of Rs. 100/-per day. Further it is stated that it was only the drivers of both the vehicles caused the accident and they were charge
sheeted by the Melur B-1 Police Station in Cr. No. 1056 of 1998 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. Due to the accident, the injured-
claimant sustained a fracture in hip joint and also other injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, she was admitted in the
Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and then in the Government Hospital, Melur and later, she was admitted in Selviram Trust Clinic, Alagarkoil
Road, Melur. P.W.15 is the doctor who examined the injured claimant and determined the disability at 18%. Ex.P.49 is the Disability Certificate.
In the evidence of the doctor, it is stated that because of the accident, the injured claimant is not able to do her work as before. After considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has correctly arrived a sum of Rs. 15,000/-towards loss due to 18% disability. It is also very
reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.
5,000/-towards loss of earning capacity and a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards transport and extra nourishment. There is no dispute that the injured-
claimant was in the hospital and has taken treatment in various hospitals. Hence, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the above mentioned
heads are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. After taking into consideration of the date
of accident, date of award and prevailing rate of interest during that period, the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 9%p.a. is reasonable and
hence the same is confirmed.
The findings given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to
warrant interference. It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and
the same is confirmed.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
C.M.A. No. 45 of 2005 in M.C.O.P. No. 1159 of 1999:
The injured claimant was 28 years old at the time of the accident. She was a tailor. In her evidence, it is stated that she was earning a sum of
Rs. 75/-per day. Further it is stated that it was only the drivers of both the vehicles caused the accident and they were charge sheeted by the Melur
B-1 Police Station in Cr. No. 1056 of 1998 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. Due to the accident, the injured-claimant sustained a
fracture in her shoulder and also clavical with disablement. Immediately after the accident, she was admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital,
Madurai and then in the Government Hospital, Melur and later, she was admitted in Selviram Trust Clinic, Alagarkoil Road, Melur. P.W.15 is the
doctor who examined the injured claimant and determined the disability at 22%. Ex.P.41 is the Disability Certificate. In the evidence of the doctor,
it is stated that because of the accident, the injured claimant is not able to do her work as before. After considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal has correctly arrived a sum of Rs. 15,000/-towards loss due to 22% disability. It is also very reasonable and hence, the
same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs. 7,000/-towards loss of earning
capacity and a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards transport and extra nourishment. There is no dispute that the injured-claimant was in the hospital and
has taken treatment in various hospitals. Hence, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the above mentioned heads are very reasonable and
hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and
prevailing rate of interest during that period, the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 9%p.a. is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed.
The findings given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to
warrant interference. It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and
the same is confirmed.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.