IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.11.2008 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3661 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai. ... Petitioner/1st respondent vs. 1.R.Jayanthi, 2.Mrs.T.Vijaya, 3.National Insurance Company Ltd., Kotta Aluvalagam, L.R.N. Colony, Sardha College Road, Salem-7. ... Respondents/petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 7.10.2004 passed in M.C.O.P.No.452 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi. For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran JUDGMENT The Tamilnadu State Express Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 7.10.2004 passed in M.C.O.P.No.452 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 31.5.1999. It is stated that the injured Ravi, driver by profession, was driving a car from Ulundurpet to Madras. The said vehicle met with an accident with the bus coming from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opposite side. In that accident the said Ravi sustained injuries all over body, fracture of the right shoulder, fracture of the left side chest bone and other injuries. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. 3. The injured claimant N.Ravi, in the course of adjudication before the Tribunal, is stated to have died in another accident on 9.9.2003. It is stated that the mother of the injured claimant died on 6.12.2003. Hence, the wife of the deceased was brought on record as his legal heir. 4. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Thereafter before conclusion of the adjudication, injured claimant Ravi died. One Tmt.Vijaya, the employer of the injured claimant was examined as P.W.2. Dr.Chandramohan was examined as P.W.3. Exs.A-1 to A-96 were filed, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate issued by Cuddalore Kannan Hospital, Ex.A-3 is the certificate issued by Chennai Ramachandra Hospital, Ex.A-4 is the discharge summary issued by Chennai Miot Hospital, Ex.A-5 is the certificate issued by Christian Hospital, Exs.A-6 to A-85 are the medical bills, Ex.A-86 is the disability certificate and Exs.87 to A-96 are the X-Rays. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of appellant transport corporation, the first respondent before the Tribunal. 5. As far as the negligence is concerned, the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent in driving and were responsible for the accident. Accordingly, negligence was apportioned equally and the liability was also apportioned equally on the insurance company of the car and the appellant transport corporation. Since the claimant died during the course of adjudication, the Tribunal held that the compensation on other heads, viz., pain and suffering, disability, loss of income, etc., will not arise. However, based on Exs.A-1 to A-96, the compensation for medical expenses was arrived at Rs.2,44,175/-. A sum of Rs.20,000/- paid as advance was deducted and the actual compensation for medical expenses was fixed at Rs.2,20,000/-. The liability of the appellant transport corporation was fixed at Rs.1,10,000/- with interest at 9%. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The contention of the counsel for the appellant transport corporation is that the negligence has to be fixed on the driver of the car, viz., injured claimant Ravi, since the F.I.R. was lodged against the said Ravi. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. 7. The Tribunal reasoned that since the injured claimant Ravi was seriously injured, he would not be in a position to give the complaint as against the driver of the bus. The fact is that the evidence on record and the findings of the Tribunal is that the accident in this case is a head-on- collision between the two vehicles. In such view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent in driving the vehicles and were equally responsible for the accident and the liability apportioned accordingly is correct. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding. 8. The quantum of compensation granted for medical expenses deleting the other heads in view of the death of the said injured Ravi is justified. Therefore, the award as also the interest granted at 9% is confirmed as the accident in this case happened in the year 1999. 9. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Ts Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Kallakurichi. + 1 cc to Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran, Advocate SR No. 65021 RSM(CO) SR/3.12.2008 Judgment in C.M.A.No.3661 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/