AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The appellant/first respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2008, made
in M.C.O.P. No. 20 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvarur. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 20 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvarur, claiming a sum
of Rs. 9,00,000/- as compensation, from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.
It was submitted that on 07.05.2006, at about 12.45 p.m., when the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing
registration No. TN50 B9105 and when the vehicle was proceeding from Tiruvarur Bus Stand Rountana, from east to west and when it was
proceeding on the bridge near V.K.M. Thairumana Mandapam, the respondent''s bus bearing registration No. TN49 N1323, coming in the
opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident. As a
result, the claimant fell down and sustained fracture of bone in his right thigh and his flesh was sheared of this region. He had also sustained injuries
in his left thigh, left fore leg, neck, right knee, left cheek, lips, right hand joint and right shoulder. He was admitted at Tiruvarur Government
Hospital, wherein first aid was given and was referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Subsequently, he was admitted at Thanjavur Rohini
Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 07.05.2006 to 31.05.2006. A surgery was conducted and his right leg was amputated
just above knee level. At the time of accident, the claimant had finished his Diploma Course in Instrumentation Engineering at Valivalam Desigar
Polytechnic, Nagapattinam and was working at Vinod Motors and Spares Production Ltd., Hosur and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Due to the
disability sustained in the accident, the claimant is not able to do his work as before. Hence, the claimant had filed the claim petition against the
respondents, who are the owner of the bus bearing registration No. TN49 N1323 and owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. TN50
B9105.
The first respondent Transport Corporation, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent
riding of the motorcyclist and not due to any rash and negligent driving of the respondent''s bus driver as alleged. Further, it was submitted that the
claimant should prove his age, income, occupation and also prove that the rider of the motorcycle had a valid license to drive it at the time of
accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.
On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely:
i. Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent''s bus? and
ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation? if so, what is the quantum of compensation?
On the claimant''s side, two witnesses were examined and thirteen documents were marked as Exs. P1 P13 namely copy of FIR, copies of
M.V.I''s reports, copy of accident register, copy of wound certificate, copy Diploma Certificate, photos, medical receipts, medical bills, disability
certificate and X''rays. On the respondents'' side, one Sekar was examined as R.W. 1 and no document was marked.
P.W. 1 the claimant had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in
support of his evidence, he had marked Exs. P1 to P11.
R.W. 1 the driver of the bus had adduced evidence that he had driven the bus on the left of the bridge and that on seeing the motorcyclist riding
his motorcycle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, he had stopped the bus on the extreme left of the road, but in spite of it, the
motorcyclist had dashed his vehicle against the bus. He had admitted that the accident had occurred in the lower half of the bridge, when the bus
was coming down an incline and when the motorcycle was proceeding up the incline of the bridge.
The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex. P1, observed that the FIR had been filed against the first respondent''s bus driver. On scrutiny of Exs. P2 and
P5, it is seen that the accident had not been caused due to any mechanism failure of the vehicles. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of exhibits marked as
Pi, P2 and P6 and on scrutiny of evidence of P.W. 1 and on observing that R.W. 1 had not filed any complaint with the Traffic Police to show that
the motorcyclist had been rash and negligent in his riding, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the first respondent''s bus and hence dismissed the claim as against the second respondent.
P.W. 2 Dr. Ansari had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained fracture of ''Supara Sandalo'' bone and tibia bone in his right thigh and
that the claimant''s right leg had been amputated at knee level and that the claimant would not be able to stand or walk without the help of a crutch.
He certified that the disability sustained by the claimant was 76% and in support of his evidences, he had marked Exs. P12 and P13.
The Tribunal, on observing that the documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the claimant held that the notional income
of the claimant could only be taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for transport expenses, Rs. 2,000/- for
nutrition, Rs. 50,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of amenities and loss of comfort, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering, Rs.
5,80,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of income due to disability of 76%, Rs. 54,000/-was awarded for medical expenses as per
medical bills marked as Exs. P8 to P11. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,13,000/- as compensation to the claimant and directed the
first respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of
payment of compensation, with costs, within two months from the date of it''s order.
Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the first respondent Transport Corporation has preferred the present civil miscellaneous
appeal.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was caused due
to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant Corporation bus, without appreciating the evidence of R.W. 1. It is contended further that the
Tribunal ought to have fixed contributory negligence on the part of the injured, who rode his two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner. Further, it
is contended that the disability of 76% assessed by P.W. 2 Doctor was excessive and that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 5,80,000/-
for disability and loss of earning capacity as the multiplier of 16 adopted was excessive. It is also contended that the monthly income of Rs. 4,000/-
fixed by the Tribunal was excessive and that the notional income should have been fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is also contended that the
award granted under the head of loss of comfort, pain and suffering and medical expenses was excessive and hence it is prayed to set aside the
award passed by the Tribunal.
Notice had been duly served on the claimant. Even then, no one appeared on behalf of the claimant. Under this circumstance, this Court is
constrained to pass this Judgment on the basis of available records.
On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the
impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum
of compensation. This Court is of the further view that as per the evidence of the claimant and doctor, the claimant''s right leg had been amputated
above the knee and the doctor had assessed the disability at 76%. It is also seen that the claimant was aged only 20 years. Therefore, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation, since the claimant had sustained permanent disability due to amputation and he is also
entitled to receive compensation under the head of fixation of artificial leg. Besides this, the claimant had spent a sum of RS. 50,000/- for medical
expenses. This Court is of the further view that the claimant had come into the category of a physically challenged person and his prospects of
marriage had been considerably reduced. Hence, this Court confirms the award passed by the Tribunal.
This Court has already directed the appellant Transport Corporation to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 20 of
2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvarur and also permitted the claimant to withdraw a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
Now, this Court directs the appellant Transport Corporation to deposit the balance compensation amount, with proportionate interest thereon,
to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 20 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvarur, within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in
the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 20 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvarur, subject to deduction of earlier withdrawal, if
any, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree
dated 11.07.2008, made in M.C.O.P. No. 20 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvarur, is confirmed. No costs.