AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Challenge in this Appeal is to the Order in M.C.O.P. No. 346 of 1998 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem, dismissing the Claim Petition filed by the Appellant-Claimant seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for
personal injuries sustained by him.
Brief facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows:
On 23.4.1998 � 1.30 P.M. the injured-Claimant was proceeding on the left side of the Salem to Five Roads in order to go to Kurangu chavadi
by his bi-cycle. When he was nearing R.K. Hotel, State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No. TN-27 N 0176 came from back side
with high speed driven in a negligent manner hit against the Claimant. Due to the accident, Claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries in his
right hand, hip and multiple injuries all over the body. After the accident, the Claimant was admitted in Government Hospital, Salem He was taken
to the hospital in the same bus. Criminal case was registered against the bus driver in Cr. No. 466 of 1998 u/s 279 and 337 I.P.C. for rash and
negligent driving. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the Claimant filed Petition u/s 166 of M.V. Act
claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Resisting the Claim, S.T.C. has filed counter stating that the bus driver was driving the bus slowly, since bullock cart was proceeding ahead. At
that time the Claimant attempted to over take the bus and in that course hit against the median wall and had fallen down on the bus and invited the
accident. The accident was due to lack of care on the part of the injured-Claimant. Since the bus driver was not responsible for the accident,
S.T.C. is not liable to pay the compensation.
To substantiate his claim, Claimant examined himself as P.W. 1. Dr. S. Rajamanickam was examined as P.W. 2. Exs. A.1 to A.69 were
marked before the Tribunal. X-rays were marked as M.Os. 1 to M.O. 9. No evidence was adduced on the side of the S.T.C. Observing that the
Claimant has not come forward with material particulars and correct details as to the accident and faulting the Claimant for not marking the F.I.R.,
Tribunal has held that the Claimant has not proved that the accident was due to negligent driving of the bus driver. After referring to the injuries
sustained by the Claimant and Ex. A.69 Disability Certificate, Tribunal fixed Permanent Disability at 40%. Observing that the Claimant has not
established the negligent driving of the bus driver, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under ''No fault liability'' in terms of Section
140 of M.V. Act.
Challenging the order of the Tribunal and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Claimant has preferred this Appeal. When the Appeal
came up for hearing, on behalf of the Appellant-Claimant, C.M.P. No. 386/1998 was filed to receive the F.I.R. as additional document. C.M.P.
No. 386/1998 was allowed and F.I.R. in Cr. No. 466 of 1998 was ordered to be received as additional evidence and the F.I.R. was marked as
Ex. A.70.
Laying emphasis upon the recitals in Ex. A.70 F.I.R., the learned Counsel Mr. V.R. Rajasekaran, appearing for the Appellant has submitted that
the Tribunal has failed to analyse the evidence in its proper perspective. Submitting that there is no statutory requirement for filing F.I.R., the
learned Counsel for the Appellant further argued that the manner of sustaining injuries has been clearly stated in Ex. A.1 Wound Certificate which
was erroneously brushed aside by the Tribunal. Drawing attention of the Court to the Counter- Statement filed by the Respondent-Corporation, it
was submitted that even the Respondent-Corporation has not chosen to deny the accident in its Counter and while so, the Tribunal erred in
doubting the Claimant''s case and awarding Rs. 25,000/- in terms of Section 140 of M.V. Act.
Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation has submitted that in the absence of any satisfactory evidence as
to the accident and taking note of non filing of F.I.R., Tribunal has rightly held that the Claimant had failed to prove the accident and that the finding
does not suffered from any perversity. It was also submitted that having regard to the nature of injuries, Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 25,000/-
in terms of Section 140 of M.V. Act and the same cannot be interfered with.
In the light of the submissions, the following Points arise for consideration:
Whether the Tribunal was right in doubting the Claimant''s version as to the accident on the ground of non-production of F.I.R?
What is the quantum of compensation payable to the Claimant?
Point No. 1:
On 23.4.1998 � 1.30 P.M. the Claimant was proceeding from new bus stand to Kurangu chavadi in his bi-cycle keeping his left. While he was
proceeding near R.K. Hotel, S.T.C. bus bearing registration No. TN-27 N 0176 hit the Claimant from behind. Due to accident the Claimant
sustained fracture of right elbow, left knee joint and cervical bone. The evidence of P.W. 1 clearly narrates the manner of accident and involvement
of S.T.C. bus bearing registration No. TN-27 N 0176. The evidence of P.W. 1 is amply strengthened by the recitals in Ex. A.70 F.I.R. produced
as additional evidence in this Appeal.
The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 1 mainly on the ground that no F.I.R. was marked. The approach of the Tribunal does not merit
acceptance. No doubt, F.I.R. and Charge sheets would be of great assistance to the Tribunal in appraising the evidence. But the non-marking of
F.I.R. and charge sheet cannot be the reason for doubting the Claimant''s case in its entirety.
As noted earlier, after the accident the Claimant was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Salem at 1.45 P.M. on the same day on
23.4.1998 where he had taken treatment for 19 days. In Ex. A.1 the manner of sustaining injuries is stated as:
Alleged to have been injured in a RTA � Hit by a bus (TN 07 N 0176) from behind while riding a bi-cycle at about 1.15 P.M. on 23.4.1998
near five roads.
The mention of road traffic accident in the earliest document-Ex. A.1 Wound Certificate goes a long way strengthening the Claimant''s case.
In fact, in the Counter-statement filed by the Respondent-Corporation, the Corporation has not chosen to deny the accident. In Para-6 of its
Counter, S.T.C. has stated that the bus driver was slowly following a bullock cart and at that time, the Claimant came in his bi-cycle from behind
the bus and attempted to over take the bus and in that course, hit against the median wall and sustained injuries. The averments in Para (6) of the
Counter-Statement would clearly show that the accident was not in serious dispute. But only the manner of accident was disputed. In a Claim
Petition, proof of accident lies upon the Claimant. But it is not always mandatory that F.I.R. need be produced. While the Claimant was admitted
in Medical College Hospital, Salem, he has narrated the manner of accident before the Doctor. The Tribunal was not right in ignoring the valuable
piece of evidence in Ex. A.1.
Of course, F.I.R. and charge sheet would be of great assistance to the Tribunals in determining the manner of accident and on controversial
aspects in respect of the accident. It is also true that the Claimant must try to secure and furnish all relevant documents such as F.I.R., Charge
sheet, Injury certificate, Post Mortem certificate, M.V.I. Report, Seizure list of the vehicle, Disability Certificate etc. In some cases, Claimant might
not have produced the documents. It is for the reason that there seems to be a feeling alround that these cases do not require much effort or
application on the part of the litigants. If the evidence is lacking, Courts and Tribunals must call upon the Claimant to produce necessary materials
and afford sufficient opportunity to the Claimant in securing the records, rather than being haste in dismissing the Claim Petition. I am of the
considered view that in the present case, the Tribunal was not right in doubting the case of the Claimant on the ground that the Claimant had not
produced the F.I.R.
As the bus was proceeding within the City, the driver was expected to take due care and the circumstances would show that the driver of the
bus failed to exercise due care. Upon consideration of F.I.R. and evidence of P.W. 1, it is seen that the Claimant was proceeding on the left side
of the road and at that time the bus came from behind and hit the cyclist. On the evidence of P.W. 1 and recitals in Ex. A.1, I am of the considered
view that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Since the Claimant sustained injury due to the negligent driving of the
bus driver, the Respondent-S.T.C. is liable to pay the compensation.
Point No. 2:
In the accident, P.W. 1 has sustained injuries in the right elbow, nape of neck, left temporal region, left fore arm, both right and left patella. The
Claimant was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Salem where he had taken treatment for 19 days as in-patient. The X-ray discloses
comminuted fracture of right elbow. After treatment, the Claimant got himself discharged and admitted in a private hospital where he had taken
treatment as in-patient for about one month. Surgery was conducted and plates were inserted. The Claimant had produced Ex. A.3 Discharge
Summary of Chellappa Hospital as to the nature of treatment given to the Claimant. By perusal of Ex. A.3, it is seen that the Claimant had taken
treatment for about one month in Chellappa Hospital, Salem.
In his evidence, the Claimant had stated that he has spent Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses. He had produced Exs. A.4 to A.53 medical bills
and bills for purchase of medicines. The total amount claimed in Exs. A.4 to A.53 is Rs. 18,907.90. The Claimant had also produced series of X-
rays. On the basis of Exs. A.4 to A.53 and X-rays, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded for medical expenses.
As noted earlier, the Claimant had taken treatment as in-patient in Medical College Hospital, Salem for 19 days and thereafter, he had taken
treatment in Chellappa Hospital for one month. The Claimant had sustained fracture injury in right elbow and injuries all over the body. Having
regard to the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded for Pain and Suffering.
In his evidence, P.W. 1 has stated that even after treatment, he is not in a position to lift his right hand. P.W. 2 Dr. Rajamanickam had
examined the Claimant and assessed the Permanent Disability at 40%. P.W.2 had noticed that there was no movement of right elbow and that the
right elbow movement is restricted 20 � 110. P.W.2 has opined that the Claimant cannot lift any weight and that he was not able to do any hard
work and there would be difficulty in riding bicycle. As the Claimant was employed in construction work with fracture injury in his right elbow, the
Claimant would have great difficulty in carrying on his normal avocation.
The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the Claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such
compensation is what is termed as ""just compensation"". The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of
deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The Supreme Court and this Court had repeatedly held that in bodily injury cases while
assessing compensation, the Court should take into account all the relevant circumstances, evidence and the legal principles governing
quantification of compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the
injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be only token damages.
Having regard to the nature of injuries and percentage of disability, compensation amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- is awarded to the Claimant as
under:
Permanent Disability
and other injury ..... Rs. 75,000/-
Pain and Suffering ..... Rs. 25,000/-
Medical expenses ..... Rs. 20,000/-
Transport Charges ..... Rs. 5,000/-
Attendant Charges ..... Rs. 5,000/-
-------------
Total ..... Rs. 1,30,000/-
-------------
The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- under ""No fault liability"" which is said to have been paid by the Respondent-Corporation. The
Respondent-Corporation is liable to pay the balance compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- which is payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from
the date of Petition till the date of deposit.
In the result,
The quantum of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (awarded in terms of Section 140 of M.V. Act) in M.C.O.P. No. 346 of 1998 dated 9.2.2001 on
the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem is enhanced to Rs. 1,30,000/- and this C.M.A. is allowed
accordingly.
The compensation amount of Rs. 25,000/- along with accrued interest is said to have been withdrawn by the Claimant.
The enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- is payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of Petition till the date of deposit.
The Respondent-Corporation shall deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- along with accrued interest within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.
On such deposit, the Claimant is entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest on filing necessary
application before the Tribunal.
There is no order as to costs in this Appeal.