The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs T.P.M. Sughirtharaj

C.S. Karnan, J.—The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu

State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram, against the Award and Decree, dated 04.12.2007, made in M.C.O.P. No. 95 of 2003, on the file

of the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Tract Court No. I, Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs. 94,791/-,

together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.

Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,

Villupuram, has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.

The short facts of the case are as follows:

At about 11.45 a.m. on 28.03.2002, when the petitioner was riding his ''Bajaj Chetak'' Scooter bearing registration No. TN27 A7895 and

proceeding towards State Bank in Salem Town and when he had crossed Vincent bus stop, and travelling on the extreme left side of the road, the

respondent''s bus bearing registration No. TN32 N1367, driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came from behind

and dashed against the said Scooter of the petitioner and caused the accident. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained multiple fracture

on his right hand and he was immediately taken to Kiruba Hospital, Salem-7, where he was treated as inpatient from 28.03.2002 to 03.04.2002.

After the accident, the petitioner is not able to write as usual and experiences pain on the right hand shoulder. The petitioner has claimed a

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the respondent u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Regarding the said accident, the Traffic Investigation Wing, Salem City registered a case in Crime No. 196/2002, against the driver of the bus

bearing registration No. TN32 N3267, under Sections 279 and 332 of I.P.C and the case is pending investigation.

The respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim stating that the driver of the respondent''s bus drove the vehicle with due care and caution

and observed all the traffic rules and was not rash and negligent as alleged in the petition. It has been stated that on 28.03.2002, the respondent''s

bus bearing registration No. TN32 N1367 was on its trip from Salem to Tiruvannamalai and that at 11.28 a.m. when the bus was nearing Vincent

bus stop, a large crowd, which had assembled for temple festival, crossed the bus; that on seeing the crowed, the petitioner, who came in the

scooter bearing registration No. TN27 A7895 lost his balance and hit himself in the backside of the bus; that the respondent''s bus driver was not

responsible for the accident; that the accident had occurred only due to the careless and negligent act of the driver.

The respondent has further stated that the Criminal Court, after trial, held that the charges framed against the respondent''s driver was not

proved and had acquitted the respondent''s driver. Further, the age, occupation, monthly income, the nature of alleged injuries sustained by the

petitioner, the period of treatment, medical expenses and percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner has to be proved by the petitioner by

documentary evidence.

It has been submitted that the claim is excessive and disproportionate to the loss caused due to the accident and injuries and as such the

respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely:

(i) Who is responsible for the accident?

(ii) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which he is entitled to get?

(iii) To what other relief?

On the petitioner''s side, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and the Doctor, who had issued the Disability Certificate to the petitioner, was

examined as PW2 and 23 documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P23. On the respondent''s side, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1, but

no documents were marked.

The PW1 in his evidence had deposed that on 28.03.2002, at 11.45 a.m. when he was travelling in his Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing

registration No. TN27 A7895 and was proceeding towards State Bank, Salem and when he had passed the Vincent bus stand and travelling on

the extreme left of the road, the respondent''s bus bearing registration No. TN32 N1367, driven by its driver without sounding of horn, came from

behind and had dashed against his vehicle; that as a result of this impact, he had been thrown out of his scooter had fallen down; that he had

sustained injuries in the fingers of his right hand and his bone in the right fore arm joint has been fractured. He had deposed that due to the

accident, his scooter was also damaged and that he had sold the said scooter. He was admitted in Kiruba Hospital, Salem, initially.

Regarding the accident, a criminal case was filed by the Traffic Investigation Wing of Salem Police, after investigation, against the driver of the

said bus and a Charge Sheet was filed with the Judicial Magistrate Court No. III and an enquiry was conducted.

To refute the allegations of the petitioner, the driver of the said bus was examined as RW1, on the respondent''s side. The RW1 has deposed

that on 28.03.2002, at about 11.20 a.m. he had started to drive the respondent''s bus from the new bus stand, Salem towards Tirukovilur and that

when the bus was nearing Vincent bus stand next to Hasthampet, he had seen a large crowd gathered there to attend the temple festival and so he

was driving the bus slowly; that at that time, the petitioner, who was riding his Scooter had tried to overtake the bus on the left side and due to the

milling crowed, the scooterist had lost his balance, due to his negligence and was unable to control his scooter and so had fallen down on the left

side of the bus. The RW1 had further deposed that on hearing the thind of the Scooter falling down, he had stopped the bus. The Police, who

were patrolling that area had asked him to drive the bus to the Police Station, as the scooterist had complained to them that he had fallen down

only because the bus had dashed against him. Further, he deposed that a case was filed against him by the Alagapuram Police. He had stated that

the accident was not caused due to any negligence or rash driving on his part and that it has been caused only because of the negligent and rash

driving of the petitioner. The scooterist had not fallen down due to any collision with the bus, but that he had fallen down due to his own fault and

negligence and as such the petitioner, in order to claim undue compensation, had filed the claim petition and as such the respondent is not liable to

pay any compensation to the petitioner and hence the claim petition has got to be dismissed.

From the evidence given by the RW1, the Tribunal held that the driver of the bus became award that the petitioner had fallen down from his

Scooter only after the Police informed him of the accident and as such were of the view that the bus driver had driven the bus in such a rash

manner as to not even notice the fall of the scoorterist. Further, the Tribunal held that as no witnesses were examined in this regard to prove the

evidence given by the RW1, his evidence could not be accepted as true. As such, the Tribunal on consideration of evidence of PW1 and scrutiny

of Ex.P1, the FIR; Ex.P2, the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report; Ex.P4, the Rough Sketch; Ex.P5, the copy of Charge Sheet; held that the

accident was not caused by any negligent and rash driving of the petitioner, but that it had been caused only by the negligence of the respondent''s

bus driver.

To assess the compensation to be paid to the petitioner, the Tribunal scrutinised documents marked as Ex.P7, Discharge Summary issued at

Kiruba Hospital, Salem and Ex.P3, Wound Certificate. It is evident from a reading of these documents; that the petitioner was aged about 64

years at the time of the accident and that he had sustained four grievous injuries and three simple injuries in the accident; that he had taken

treatment as inpatient in the hospital from 28.03.2002 to 03.04.2002.

The Doctor, who had assessed the disability of the petitioner, was examined as PW2. The PW2, in his evidence, had stated that the petitioner

had sustained grievous injuries in the accident and that he had assessed the extent of the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner as 30% and

in support of his assessment, he had marked Ex.P8, the Disability Certificate and Ex.P15, the X-rays .As such, the Tribunal, on considering the

oral and documentary evidence, held that the petitioner had sustained a permanent disability of 30% due to the accident. Though the respondent

had cited legal rulings made in Judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court cases to stress their point of view that only Rs. 1,000/- should be offered

for 1% disability, the said Judgements were not marked before the Tribunal. As such, the Tribunal relying on the case laws to be followed as laid

down in the 2007 (2), Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Cases, Volume 2, were of the opinion that a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- could be awarded

for 1% disability and accordingly granted a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the petitioner under the head of permanent disability. The Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering; a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was granted as an award for transport expenses; on

scrutiny of medical bills marked as Exs.P16, P17, P19, P20 and P21, the Tribunal granted an award of Rs. 23,791/- under the head of medical

expenses. In total, the Tribunal granted an award of Rs. 94,791/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the respondent to deposit the

above said award together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation,

into the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 95 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Tract Court

No. I, Salem, within a period of two months, from the date of its Order. Further, after such deposit was made, the award with accrued interest

was to be invested in a nationalised bank in the re-investment scheme, for a period of three years. The excess Court fee paid by the petitioner was

to be refunded to him and the Advocate fees was fixed at Rs. 4,675/-.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to consider that the accident did not

happen due to negligence on the part of the appellant Corporation driver and that it was caused only by the claimant, who was driving his Bajaj

Scooter negligently. It was also contended that the claimant had not filed his driving licence. It was also pointed out that the age and income proof

of the claimant was not filed. It was also contended that the assessment of 30% disability was on the higher side as the claimant had sustained only

simple injuries and hence the award of Rs. 60,000/- granted for disability was erroneous. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has

contended that the award of Rs. 94,791/- granted by the Tribunal was excessive and hence has prayed for setting aside of the award passed by

the Tribunal.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the medical expenses alone were Rs. 23,791. To prove the same, the claimant

has marked Exs.P16, P17, P19, P20 and P21. The rest of the compensation awarded under various heads is on the lower side. The claimant was

admitted at a private hospital at Salem and he had undergone treatment for a period of more than one year, as an inpatient. A competent Doctor

was also examined as PW2, who issued the Disability Certificate, Ex.P15, wherein it has been stated that the claimant had sustained 30%. The

learned Counsel appearing for the respondent further argued that the claimant after being discharged from the hospital had subsequently undergone

treatment, for a long duration, as outpatient and that the claimant has not made adequate recovery. So, it was argued that the Tribunal had well

considered the claim petition and the counter of the respondent and had then passed the award. Further, the learned Counsel appearing for the

respondent argued that there is no irregularity or illegality in the said award passed by the Tribunal and as such, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

filed by the appellant is not maintainable.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is of the

view that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- for disability, on the basis of Ex.P8, Disability Certificate, which has been issued by a

competent Doctor, who is a specialist in Ortho. As such, the award of Rs. 60,000/- granted by the Tribunal for loss of earnings due to disability

cannot be faulted with as it is found to be reasonable and fair.

Even, as per our High Court Judgment made in similar accident cases, it has been held that upto Rs. 2,000/- can be allowed for every 1%

disability sustained by the injured claimant, depending on the nature of injuries. As such, this Court does not find any discrepancies in the award of

Rs. 60,000/- passed by the Tribunal on the basis of the Disability Certificate.

Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the claimant for pain and suffering after scrutiny of Ex.P3, the Wound Certificate.

It is seen from a reading of Ex.P3, that the claimant had sustained four grievous injuries and three simple injuries. As such, the award of Rs.

10,000/- granted for pain and suffering is found to be pertinent. The Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for transport. But, the Tribunal had

not considered any award under the heads of nutrition and damages of articles of the claimant. Medical expenses Rs. 23,791/- is also fair.

Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the award granted by the Tribunal is equitable and fair and not excessive and hence this

Court confirms the award of Rs. 94,791/- granted by the Tribunal, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the

petition till the date of payment, in M.C.O.P. No. 95 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast

Tract Court No. I, Salem.

At the time of admission, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, on 07.07.2008, to deposit

a sum of Rs. 75,000/- with interest and entire costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 95 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Judge,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Tract Court No. I, Salem. Therefore, this Court now directs the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation to deposit the balance compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment,

into the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 95 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Tract Court

No. I, Salem, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

As the accident happened in the year 2002, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest and

costs, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 95 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Tract

Court No. I, Salem, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law, subject to deduction of withdrawals, if any.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 04.12.2007, in M.C.O.P. No. 95 of 2003,

passed by the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Tract Court No. I, Salem, is confirmed. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.