The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd vs K.A.Rajaram, & Ors.

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Madurai Division-III, Nagercoil at Ranithottam has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the award dated 23.09.2006 made in MCOP.No.139 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (In the Court of District Judge, Kanyakumari) at Nagercoil.

The respondents 2 to 9 herein filed the said MCOP seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs on account of the death of Subathramma, the wife of the second respondent herein and mother of the respondents 3 to 9. According to the claimants, Subathramma met with an accident on 15.02.2002 when she was waiting at a bus stop near Nagercoil post office. She sufferred severe injuries on her right leg. She was taken to hospital. Even though she was subsequently discharged, she was on continous treatment. Finally, she passed away on 22.08.2003.

The Tribunal held that even though there were no positive evidence to show that the deceased died on account of the accident in question, neverthless, the claimants were entitled to compensation. Since Subathramma met with a road accident and the same was duly proved by the oral testimony of PW.1 and Exibit P.1, F.I.R in Crime No.136 of 2002, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,20,212/-. But, the substantial portion of the said amount is towards the medical expenditure which came to Rs.1,88,112/-. The claimants had examined Dr.T.Thiraviam as P.W.2. The said doctor deposed that he gave treatment to Subathramma for the injuries and fractures she suffered on her leg.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the case of the claimants was that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent K.A.Rajaram, Driver employed with the appellant corporation. But he was acquitted in STC No.1104 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil. The judgment of acquittal was marked as Ex.R1. But, from this, one cannot come to a conclusion that the accident did not occur. The standard of proof in a claim proceeding and criminal proceeding are different. It is admitted that the first respondent herein took the injured Subathramma to hospital. Even though R1 would claim that he acted out of humanitarian impulses, this Court is finding it difficult to believe. Obviously, the vehicle belonging to the appellant corporation was involved in the accident. That is why the first respondent had taken Subathramma to hospital for treatment.

The Tribunal perused the evidence of PW.1 and also the other relevant materials on record carefully and only thereafter arrived at a conclusion that Subathramma was indeed injured in a road accident. As already pointed out, the compensation has been given not for the death of Subathramma, but, for the medical expenditure incurred by the claimants for treating her. The award amount cannot be said to be excessive. I find no merit in this appeal. It stands dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.