IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 1528 of 2008(C) --------------------------- OPMV.1504/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, METTUPALAYAM ROAD, P.O.COIMBATORE. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- 1. RAGHAVENDRA PRABHU, S/O.NARAYANA PRABHU, KALAPPURAKOVILAKAM, P.O.SRINGAPURAM, KODUNGALLUR. 2. BALAN, P.R.NO.13138, POLLACHI BRANCH-2 COVAL ROAD, P.O.POLLACHI. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1528 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)1504/02. The claimant, a passenger in a bus owned by the appellant sustained injuries on account of the glass of the bus being broken. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.41,500/-. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred by the Corporation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that materials are not sufficient to establish the factum of negligence and so also in fixing the quantum of compensation. On a careful reading of the award it is revealed that the defence set up by the Corporation is that of an act of God. It is a settled principle that when a defence is set up in the form of an act of God by a party the burden is on that person to prove the same. Admittedly, the claimant was only a passenger in a bus. M.A.C.A. 1528 OF 2008 -:2:- There is no allegation that he had contributed anything towards the accident. It is contended by him that the bus dashed against a pillar as a result of which the glass broke and he sustained injuries. Even otherwise it is a settled principle of law now that when public transport vehicles are used for the conveyance of passengers it is obligatory on the part of the owner of the bus to take appropriate care to see that the vehicles are in a fit road plying condition. In spite of the same suppose an accident had taken place one can call it or classify it as an inevitable accident. But this is a matter that has to be pleaded and proved. The person in control of the bus is the appellant and unless it is properly explained a poor passenger cannot be blamed for the accident. Therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered on the question of negligence. 3. Learned counsel, then very strongly contends before me that the claimant had sustained injuries on the skull and the accident had taken place in Tamil Nadu. He had undergone treatment in Kodungallur to take the initial treatment which itself is an indicative of the fact that the M.A.C.A. 1528 OF 2008 -:3:- injuries sustained are simple in nature. I have seen the wound certificate extracted by the Tribunal. It shows that he had lacerated injury of 4 x 5 cm. bone deep and the C.T. Scan revealed depressed fracture at the wound site. It is also seen that surgery was done and therefore the contention that there was delay in taking treatment shall not militate against the claimant. The Tribunal has only taken a reasonable income of Rs.2,000/- and awarded the compensation for actual loss of earnings for 2 and half months. Similarly, it has only given a reasonable compensation for pain and sufferings. It has not granted any compensation as such for permanent disability and therefore by any strength of imagination it cannot be held that the compensation awarded is excessive. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-