The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs Mylayee, The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—The appeal is preferred by the Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree made in MCOP No. 1108 of 2000 dated 20.12.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Fast Track Court No. 2, Trichirapalli.

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The injured-Mylayee met with motor traffic accident that took place on 04.09.1999 at about 5.25 p.m. The said injured was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. TN-49-N-0670 belonging to the second Respondent/Transport Corporation, which was proceeding from West to East direction in the Thiruvaipadi-Kumbakonam Kadampur Road. The said bus was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. When the bus reached near Thiruvaipadi, another bus bearing Registration No. TN-32-N-0467 belonging to the Appellant/ Transport Corporation, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and there was a head-on-collision of both the buses. Due to the said impact, the injured-claimant in the present case as well as other passengers sustained injuries. The injured -claimant sustained fracture in both the legs and also multiple grievous injuries all over the body. She claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- before the Tribunal. The Appellant / Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

Who is responsible for the accident?

Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so to what extent?

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 both the buses and therefore, negligence was fixed on both the drivers of the buses equally and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:

Rupees Loss due to 55% disability 1,10,000/- Pain and suffering 15,000/- Medical expenses 25,000/- Extra nourishment 10,000/- ---------------- Total..... 1,60,000/- ================

Aggrieved by that award, the Appellant / Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal against its liability of Rs. 80,000/-.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Transport Corporation, questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without any basis and justification. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the materials available on record. The injured herself was examined as P.W.22 and documents were also marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the drivers of both the buses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the buses and the negligence was fixed on them equally. It is a question of fact and it is based on valid materials and evidence, and hence the same is confirmed.

The injured-claimant was 38 years old at the time of accident. In her evidence, it is stated that she is a coolie and she was earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month at that time. Further it is stated that the drivers of both the buses caused the accident and the drivers were also chargesheeted by Thirupananthal Police Station in Crime No. 179 of 1999 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained the following injuries:

Multiple injuries all over the body including fracture in the right and left legs. Cut injury below the right eye and right side of cheek. One tooth has fallen in the lower jaw.

Immediately, after the accident, she was admitted in the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam on 04.09.1999, where she was referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Thereafter, she was admitted in the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital on the same day, i.e. on 04.09.1999 and she was in-patient till 20.11.1999. A surgery was also done on 31.10.1999. P.W.23 is the Doctor who examined the claimant. In his evidence, it is stated that there is a fracture in the right leg of the claimant and the right leg was shortened by 2.7 Cm and due to the same, she is unable to bend her right leg and do the work as before. She is also unable to sit, stand and climb substantially. P.W.23-Doctor, assessed the disability of the claimant at 55%. Ex.P61 is the Disability Certificate. Ex.P62 is the X-ray. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Doctor and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs. 2000/- per percentage of disability, totalling to Rs. 1,10,000/- towards loss due to 55% disability. Normally the Courts award a sum of Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2000/- per percentage of disability. It is also seen that the disability affects her earning capacity. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs. 2000/- per percentage of disability and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15000/-towards pain and suffering. After considering the nature of injuries as stated above, this Court is of the view that the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25000/- towards medical expenses. There is no dispute that the claimant was admitted in the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital as in-patient and she took treatment for nearly 3 months. It is an actual expenditure. The amount awarded towards this head is also very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 10000/- towards extra nourishment. There is no dispute that the claimant was in the hospital for a period of nearly 3 months. Therefore, after discharge, certainly she would have taken nutritious and healthy food for the speedy recovery. Hence, the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs. 10000/- towards extra nourishment. The Tribunal has awarded interest rate at 9% p.a., from the date of petition. Taking into consideration the date of accident, date of award and also the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. I do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. The findings given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence. It is a question of fact and it is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and hence the same is confirmed.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and it is not a fit case for admission, and therefore, the same is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010 is closed. No costs.