The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Elumalai

S. Manikumar, J.—According to the respondent, that on 09.12.1995, at 9.50 am, when he was walking on the extreme left of the road, near Siruthamur junction, a State Transport Corporation bus bearing regn. No. TN31 N 0314, dashed against him and he sustained injuries. He was treated in Government Hospital Tindivanam, and thereafter, in Jipmer Hospital, Pondy. He claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/. The State Transport Corporation, has opposed the claim contending inter alia that there was no such accident on the said date. They denied the contention that the respondent suffered injuries. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads.

Before the claims tribunal, the respondent/claimant examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the manner of accident. PW2, is the Doctor. Ex.A1, FIR, Ex.A2, Wound certificate, Ex.A3, Discharge Summary, Ex.A4, Complaint, Ex.A5, x-ray and Ex.A6, Disability certificate, have been filed. On behalf of State Transport Corporation, RW1, driver of the State Transport Corporation bus has adduced evidence.

On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the claims tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus was negligent in causing the accident. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence including that of the testimony of PW2, Doctor, the claims tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 34,000/- with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation. Being aggrieved by the same, the appeal has been filed.

Though, Ms. S. Geetha, learned counsel for the State Transport Corporation contended that the claims tribunal has erred in not appreciating the oral testimony of RW1, driver and that no such accident occurred on 09.12.1995 and that the claims tribunal has also erred in shifting the burden of proving the accident, this Court is not inclined to reverse the finding of negligence fixed on the driver of the State Transport Corporation for the reason, that the oral testimony of PW1/claimant is duly corroborated by Ex.P1, FIR, registered against him. As rightly observed by the claims tribunal, that when State Transport Corporation has disputed that there was no such accident on 09.12.1995, it is the burden of the Transport Corporation to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the vehicle was not operated on the said date. Perusal of the award also shows that the department has issued a memo to RW1, driver. Though, he has deposed that the file has been closed, no such document is marked. If no such accident had taken place, there was no necessity for the department to issue any memo to RW1, driver. The Corporation could have very well produced the file to the tribunal.

It is well known that in adjudging Motor Accident Claims cases, the test is principles of preponderance of probabilities and not strict proof of evidence as that of a criminal case. When the oral testimony of PW1, is duly corroborated by FIR and when the Transport corporation has also issued a memo to RW1, the cumulative evidence taken into consideration by the claims tribunal, to arrive at the conclusion that RW1, driver was negligent in causing the accident cannot be said to be manifestly illegal, in the light of the abovesaid well settled principle of law in adjudging motor claim cases.

To prove that he had sustained injuries and treated in the abovesaid hospitals, the respondent/claimant has produced Ex.A2, wound certificate, Ex.A3, Discharge summary, Ex.A5, x-ray and Ex.A6, disability certificate. PW2, Doctor examined on behalf of the respondent has also adduced supporting evidence. Compensation of Rs. 34,000/- awarded for grievous injury, fracture of right clavicle, subsequent treatment and the disability suffered, cannot be said to be grossly excessive warranting interference.

For the reasons stated supra, finding of negligence fixed on the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus and the quantum of compensation, are sustained. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant Transport Corporation, is directed to deposit the entire award amount, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the statutory deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 165 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge, Fast Track Court No. II), Tindivanam, if not deposited earlier, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant, is permitted to withdraw the award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, by making necessary applications.