IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1913 of 2010() ------------------------------------ OPMV.70/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CBE DIVISION II) LTD, CHENNIMALAI ROAD, ERODE,1, REPRESENTED BY ITS, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH SYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS/2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.ALIYAR, S/O.PRADEEP, HOUSE NO.8/208, KAROTHUKUDY HOUSE, PARUMBAVOOR.PIN- 683 542 2. M.RAJU, S/O.K.MADHAVAN, 360-A, ANNA NAGAR, ETHIRMEDU, VALIYAKARANOOR, KOMARAPALAYAM, THIRUCHENGODE, TAMILNADU, PIN 638183. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.42, PUTHUSSERY COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, GOVT.HOSPITAL JUNCTION, ALUVA 683101. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.J.JOHNSON THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.N.KRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO.1913 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in OP(MV) No.70/2005. The claimant who was driving a car along with another person as passenger sustained injuries in a road accident when it collide with a transport bus owned by the Tamilnadu Government. The tribunal found that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the transport driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.32,436/-. It is against that decision the transport corporation has come up in appeal. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent. Now the facts of the case would reveal that while the car driven by the claimant was proceeding from Erode to Coimbatore the accident took place and according to the version of the claimant the bus owned by the appellant came in a hectic speed and overlook two other vehicles and dashed against the car resulting in injuries to them. On the contra, the corporation would contend that the car came at a hectic speed and seeing the car the driver hooted the horn swerved the vehicle to the left side and inspite of the same, the car hit on the bus M.A.C.A.NO.1913 OF 2010 2 which resulted in the bus falling into a valley. Now the court below found that from the sketch available the accident had taken place when the driver of the bus had transgressed of the middle portion of the bus and hit on the car. It was also found that the car had sustained heavy damages. The police after due investigation had filed a charge sheet against the driver of the bus. PW1 the co-passenger in the car when examined had deposed before the court that the accident took place when the bus came in a negligent manner and hit on the car. The driver of the transport bus has not been examined at all to controvert this evidence. So the factum that the bus transgressed into the wrong side coupled with the investigation report which resulted in a charge sheet against the bus driver and evidence of PW1 would only point out that the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and not otherwise. So the said finding does not call for any interference. So far as the quantum is considered it has come out in evidence that the claimant has sustained fracture and the scan report revealed swelling of the brain but fortunately he did not have any fracture on the brain. He was treated in the Kovai Medical Centre, he had expended a sum of Rs.9,000/- for medical expenses. He was a proprietor of a well known textile shop and he had been deprived of attending the M.A.C.A.NO.1913 OF 2010 3 shop for considerable length of time. The nature of the accident would reveal really the seriousness of the matter and therefore, the tribunal has only awarded just and reasonable compensation taking into consideration, the nature of the injuries, the treatment expenses and other facts. That also does not call for any interference. From these discussions, I hold that there is nothing to interfere with the finding of the award of the trial court and the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE pm