The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs Krishnareddy

P.D. Waingankar, J.—By judgment and award dated: 21.9.2010 in MVC No. 136/2008 on the file of FTC-I and Addl. MACT, Bidar, the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,32,000/- to the claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded and the liability fastened, the respondent Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation has preferred MFA No. 30148/2011. Whereas the claimant has filed MFA Crob. No. 1025/2011 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

The facts in brief which gave to this appeal and cross objection are as under:--

"On 30.3.2007, the claimant was driving a mahindra jeep from Zahirabad to Palaghatti. When he reached within the limits of Karmathampatti police station in Coimbatore district, at about 8.30 p.m., a Tamil Nadu State Transport bus bearing No. TN-333/N-1577 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the mahindra jeep driven by the claimant. As a result of the terrific impact, both the legs of the claimant below the knee were fractured. Immediately he was shifted to C.M.C hospital, Coimbatore and from there to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment. He was admitted and treated as inpatient in Gandhi Hospital. He underwent amputation of his leg in the said hospital. He spent substantial amount for his treatment. He was driver, he lost his income and suffered disability. He filed a claim petition claiming compensation from the owner of the bus."

The claim petition was contested by the Corporation mainly on the ground that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the claimant himself while riding the mahindra jeep and that the amputation of the leg of the claimant has nothing to do with the accident in question.

The claim petition came up for consideration before the tribunal, before whom, the claimant was examined as P.W. -1 and Ex-P1 to P9 were marked. On behalf of the Corporation, One K. Ravichandran, S/o. Kuppa Swamy conductor of the bus was examined as RW-1 and one K. Ravichandran, S/o. Raju, driver of the bus was examined as RW-2. The tribunal on appreciation of evidence recorded a finding that the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant were due to negligence on the part of the driver of the corporation bus and thereby the tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,32,000/- by the impugned judgment and award.

I have heard the arguments by the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the Corporation.

The learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation in MFA No. 30148/2011 has vehemently argued before me that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and grant the relief claimed, as the accident had occurred in Tamilnadu, the bus belongs to Tamilnadu State Corporation, the claimant is the resident of Tamilnadu. It is further contended that the amputation of leg of the claimant is in no way concerned to the accident in question. He has also contended that it is a false claim and therefore the police have not filed charge-sheet, that the accident occurred purely due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the claimant himself. For all these reasons, the learned counsel for the Corporation has sought to allow the appeal and dismiss the claim petition.

Having heard the submissions of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon closer scrutiny of the evidence on record, the following points would arise for my determination:--

"i. Whether the claims Tribunal at Bidar had jurisdiction to entertain the claim and to grant the relief?;

ii. Whether the tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus?

iii. Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable?"

Point No. 1:--

The counsel for the corporation during the course of his arguments taken a strong objection as to the jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain the claim petition and to grant the relief. His argument is that the accident occurred within the District of Coimbatore, Tamilnadu within the jurisdiction of Karmathampatti police station, the office of the corporation is situated at Coimbatore, the claimant was an employee of a company in Coimbatore. The claimant in the cause-title of the petition has given his address as resident of Chintalghat village, Taluk Zahirabad, now residing at Baroor Taluk in Bidar District. But no documents were produced by the claimant to show that he was resident of Bidar District at the time of filing of the claim petition. However, in the statement of objection filed by the corporation, no such defence as to the jurisdiction of the tribunal was taken, no issue was framed in that regard. The parties have led their evidence and the claim came to be decided by the tribunal at Bidar on merits. Even if we go by the appeal memo, no such contention is taken even in the appeal memo. It is only during the course of arguments, it was vehemently argued that the tribunal at Bidar had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim and to grant relief. There is an element of truth in the submission made by the learned counsel for the Corporation. However, since the claim petition is already decided on merits and that the corporation also participated in the proceedings without raising objection as to the territorial jurisdiction, now it is not proper and justified to set-aside the award on that ground and direct the claimant to present the petition before the competent tribunal. By doing so, no useful purpose would be served. After all, the claim petition is decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal only. As such, I do not feel it just and proper to dismiss the claim petition on that ground after seven years. No one is going to get benefit by doing so after a lapse of about seven years.

Point No. 2:--

The other contention taken by the Corporation is that the accident occurred purely due to the negligence of the claimant-the driver of the jeep himself. The tribunal without appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective has erroneously come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Corporation bus, without considering the evidence of RW-1 and RW-2 the conductor and driver of the bus. The defence of the Corporation is that the claimant was driving the van on a down gradient road and that the bus was coming from opposite direction on ascending road and that the claimant tried to overtake another car and in the process, the Mahindra van dashed against the bus, but the same is denied by the claimant-the driver of the Mahindra jeep. The suggestion made to him that there was negligence on his part has been denied by him. Admittedly, the crime came to be registered against the driver of the bus on the strength of the complaint lodged by none other than Krishnareddy- the claimant as could be seen from Ex-P1(a). Ex--P2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s report, which shows that the accident was not due to mechanical defect. Ex-P3 is the driving license of the driver of the jeep. Merely because the charge-sheet is not filed, it cannot be said that the accident has not occurred on account of negligence of driver of the bus. The material placed on record by the claimant vis-�-vis the material placed on record by the respondent-Corporation is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant were due to negligence of driver of the Corporation bus. The tribunal is justified in coming to the said conclusion.

Point No. 3:--

Coming to the determination of compensation by the tribunal, it is the case of the appellant-Corporation that the claimant had sustained simple injuries in the said accident and the amputation of his leg has nothing to do with the accident. Ex-P4 is the certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital on 28.4.2007 where it is stated that the claimant had Grade-III compound comminuted fracture both bones, left leg with Grade-I compound comminuted fracture both bones 1/3rd right leg with fracture clavicle. It also reveals knee disc articulation lift having done on 2.4.2007. Therefore there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the corporation that the amputation of the knee has nothing to do with the accident. Moreover, the claimant has produced the accident register copy as per Ex-P9. It also speaks that he sustained fractures in an accident while driving Mahindra van hit by a bus on 30.3.2007 within the limits of Karmathampatti police station. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the claimant produced xerox copies of three documents alongwith an application I.A. 1/2005 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC- the documents produced were a xerox copy of the residential certificate said to have been issued by Member of Mandal Panchayath at Bidar certifying that the claimant is the resident of Baroor in Bidar District. Another document produced alongwith the application is the case-sheet, which speaks about the aforesaid injuries suffered by the claimant as mentioned in Ex- P4. The case-sheet also discloses the amputation of left leg below the knee. It is also seen from the case-sheet that the external fixator was applied to left leg. Skin grafting was also done. Thus all necessary steps were taken to save the leg while he was in Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad. Inspite of the best efforts made by the Doctor, his leg could not be saved, which ultimately resulted in amputation of left leg below the knee. Of-course the documents produced alongwith the IA being the xerox copies, cannot be admitted in evidence in its strict sense. Since the Court is dealing with a claim petition filed by the victim of the motor vehicle accident, there is nothing wrong in looking into the case-sheet in order to ascertain the contents of Ex-P4 and to confirm the same. Upon going through the xerox copy of the case sheet and the contents of Ex-P4-the certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that in the said accident, he sustained Grade-III compound comminuted fracture of both the bones of left leg and right leg below the knee apart from fracture of clavicle bone and that he underwent knee disarticulation left on 2.4.2007.

Now the only aspect to be seen whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable. The tribunal has awarded compensation under the various heads as under:--

Though the claimant has stated that he was working as driver and that he has produced the driving licence, he could not produce the appointment order or the salary paid to him. In the absence of the documents to that effect, the tribunal has taken his income as Rs. 3,100/- p.m. Further, the tribunal having regard to the amputation of the left leg, taken the permanent disability of the whole body as 60%, the multiplier as ''15'', having regard to his age as ''37'' years and rightly determined the compensation under the head future loss of income amounting to Rs. 3,34,800/- towards ''loss of future earnings''. Similarly, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards ''medical and attendant charges'' since he was treated in a Govt. Hospital at Secunderabad. Further, the amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh awarded towards ''loss of future amenities'' is also just and appropriate. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards ''loss of earnings during the period of treatment'' for a period of three months, Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards ''conveyance and nourishment'' appears to be just and proper. However, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded towards ''pain and suffering'' and Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of expectation of life'' seems to be on the lower side. Admittedly, he suffered Grade-III compound comminuted fracture of both the bones of left leg and right leg apart from fracture of clavicle bone. He underwent amputation of left leg below the knee. In that case, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- towards ''pain and suffering as against Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

At the age of 37 years, he lost his left leg. He also sustained fracture of both the bones of right leg. Definitely these injures would come in the way of expectation of his life. As such, he is entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of expectation of life'' as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

Thus the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 6,01,800/- as against Rs. 5,31,800/- Accordingly, I pass the following:--

MFA No. 30148/2011 filed by the Corporation is dismissed.

MFA Crob 1025/2011 filed by the claimant is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 21.9.2010 passed by the FTC and MACT, Bidar stands modified awarding a total compensation of Rs. 6,01,800/- as against Rs. 5,31,800/- together with 6% interest thereon from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation with interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

In the event of deposit, 50% of the compensation amount together with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the claimant in any Nationalised bank of his choice for a period of five years and the balance compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the claimant."

The amount in deposit in MFA No. 30148/2011 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.