IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 855 of 2004(C) ------------------------------------ (O.P(MV).NO.684/1997 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NESAMONY TRANSPORT CORPORATION (NOW KNOWN AS T.S.T.C. (MADURAI DIVISION III) LTD. NAGERCOIL). BY ADVS. SRI.MADATHIL S.ANILKUMAR, SMT.D.JAMEELA DEVI. RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. A. MURUGAN, S/O. ARUMUGHAN PILLAI, T.C.38/2211, THAMARASSERI WARD, AMKALAMANCOIL STREET, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHELLAPPAN, DRIVER, N.T.C.KANYAKUMARI DPOT, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.A.S.SABU, SRI.VIMAL KUMAR.A.V, SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A.No. 855 of 2004 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act first respondent (owner) in O.P.(MV) No.684 of 1997 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated May 17, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,58,000/- to the claimant for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are these:- On July 8, 1996 the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.TN-74/N 0426, owned by the appellant/first respondent and driven by the second respondent, from Kovalam to Nagercoil. When the bus reached at Velliyodu near Irruttonvilai, due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent, it collided MACA 855/2004 2 head on with a tempo van bearing registration No. TAT 2434. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the second respondent. Appellant/first respondent as the owner, second respondent as the driver of the offending bus are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.2.50,000/-. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the O.P., the owner and driver of the offending bus, filed a written statement, admitting the accident but attributed negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo van. 4. PWs.1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A 8 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. RW1 was examined on the side of the respondents in the O.P. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,58,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and MACA 855/2004 3 proportionate cots. The first respondent, owner of the offending bus, has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/1st respondent and the counsel for the claimant. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/1s respondent argued that the accident occurred mainly due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo van and that, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant supported the judgment of the Tribunal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus can be sustained? 7. For several reasons, we are inclined to confirm the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent. PW1, the claimant, and PW2, an independent witness, categorically MACA 855/2004 4 stated that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Evidence of PWs1 and 2 were supported by Ext.A1 copy of the F.I.R., wherein the second respondent was made an accused. Nothing was brought out in cross-examination to discredit their evidence. On the other hand, the Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence of RW1 for obvious reasons. We have gone through the award of the Tribunal as well as the depositions of PWs.1 and 2 and RW1. We find no ground to come to a different conclusion. Therefore, we confirm the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the first respondent, driver of the offending bus. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessiveThe claimant sustained scleral tear with vitreous prolapse left eye in the accident, as revealed from Ext.A2 copy of the medical report, Ext.A6 treatment book and Ext.A7 certificate of disability. Vision of his left eye was affected. He has suffered visual disability of 30%. MACA 855/2004 5 9. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,58,000/-. Break up of the amount awarded is as under :- Pain and sufferings : Rs. 10,000/- Loss of earning : Rs. 6,000/- Treatment and transportation: Rs. 36,000/- charges. Permanent disability : Rs. 81,000/- Loss of amenities and : Rs. 25,000/- enjoyment in life. -------------------- Total : Rs.1,58,000/- ======== 10. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained and the period of treatment the claimant has undergone, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and not excessive. Therefore, we find that the appeal is devoid of merit and has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.. mn