AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Murgesen, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2002, passed in M.C.O.P. No. 148 of 1998 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Palani.
The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the petitioner before the Tribunal.
The brief case of the petitioner in the claim petition is as follows:
On 08.02.1998, at about 10.15 P.M., the petitioner tried to alight from the respondent transport corporation bus bearing registration number TN-57-N-0109, when the same was halted at Soliappagoundenoor Branch Road Stop at Javudupatty. At that time, the driver of the bus applied the reverse gear and drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner without verifying whether all the passengers have safely alighted from the bus. Due to sudden starting and reversing the bus, the petitioner lost balance and as a consequence he slipped from the gate of the bus and fell down on the road. A Criminal case was registered in Crime No. 20 of 1998 on the file of the Idayakottai Police Station under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, which resulted in permanent disability. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- before the Tribunal.
The respondent transport corporation filed counter wherein it was contended that the petition is not maintainable; the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner; this respondent''s driver is in no way responsible for the accident; the allegations regarding the age, occupation, injuries and damages are denied as false and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed against this respondent.
Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked, and on the side of the respondent R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was marked.
On consideration of the evidence on both sides, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Eighty Thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
Challenging the said award passed by the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed by the transport corporation.
The points for determination in this appeal are:
(i) Whether the driver of the transport corporation drove the bus rashly and negligently?
(ii) What is the just compensation?
Point (i): On 08.02.1998, at about 10.15 P.M., the petitioner was travelling in the appellant transport corporation bus bearing registration number TN-57-N-0109. According to the claimant, when he got down from the bus at Soliappagoundenoor bus stop, the bus was moved rashly and negligently, as a result he fell down and sustained injuries. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim was under the influence of the liquor on that day, so, the victim was responsible for the accident. Ex.P.1 is the copy of the F.I.R. The complaint was given by the victim. In the complaint it is stated that the appellant transport corporation bus was driven rashly and negligently. If the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant, it is the duty of the driver to give complaint against him. But he has not chosen to lodge a complaint against the claimant. This also can be taken into consideration, so far as this case is concerned.
R.W.1 deposed that the victim was under the influence of liquor. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on Ex.R.1, the judgment of the criminal court, wherein the driver was acquitted. I have perused Ex.R.1 carefully and meticulously. It is well settled that the finding of the criminal court is not binding on the Tribunal. Even in the criminal case, the doctor spoke that he spelt the smell of alcohol and it was noted in the wound certificate. The wound certificate relied on by the doctor was not marked before the Tribunal. In Ex.A.2, the wound certificate issued by the Government Hospital, there is no endorsement that the victim was under the influence of alcohol. Ex.P.2 would falsify the claim of the appellant that the victim was under the influence of liquor. There is no evidence to reject Ex.P.2. So, the claim of the appellant that the victim was under the influence of alcohol was not established in the manner known to law. Hence, the claim of the appellant that the victim also has contributed negligence for the accident, is not correct. On careful consideration of the evidence on record, I find no reason to reject the evidence of P.W.1. Hence, this Court is inclined to hold that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the bus. Accordingly, Point No. (i) is answered against the appellant.
Point (ii): The victim sustained fracture on both bones of right leg. He took treatment as inpatient for three months. To prove the permanent disability the petitioner examined Dr. A. Mohamed Zubair as P.W.2. The doctor spoke about the nature of the fracture sustained by the petitioner. He opined that that there is mal-union of right Tibia and it is difficult for the claimant to sit, to carry heavy materials and to carry climb over the ladder. Considering all these facts, the doctor assessed the permanent disability at 43%. Accordingly, the tribunal has correctly awarded a sum of Rs. 43,000/- towards permanent disability. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and sufferings, which warrant no interference. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards medical expenditure based on Ex.P.4. There is no reason to suspect the genuineness of the medical bills. Hence, the compensation awarded towards medical expenses is confirmed. However, except the first four bills dated 22.05.1998, 29.05.1998, 29.05.1998 and 04.06.1998 respectively, the other bills are not affixed with revenue stamps for the receipt of the amounts. So, the claimant has to pay stamp duty penalty. On careful consideration of the evidence on record, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal shall collect stamp duty penalty from the petitioner for the unstamped medical bills before disbursing the award amount. No costs.