IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.3.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.Nos.605 and 606 of 2009 C.M.A.No. 605 of 2009:- The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. A. Elumalai ... Respondent/Petitioner C.M.A.No. 606 of 2009:- The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/ Respondent vs. Muthulakshmi ... Respondent/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common award and decree dated 4.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.184 and 186 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Principal Sub Court), Villupuram. For appellant : Mrs. B. Vijayalakshmi ----- COMMON JUDGMENT The appellant transport corporation has filed these two appeal challenging the common award dated 4.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.184 and 186 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Principal Sub Court), Villupuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The facts are common in both the cases. The claimants/ respondents in both the cases are injured occupants of the bus which belongs to the appellant transport corporation. The bus was proceeding from Sivaganga to Trichy. According to the appellant, the van which was coming on the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the bus and in that accident, several persons suffered injuries. The two claimants viz., Elumalai and Muthulakshmi, who travelled in the bus, filed claims for compensation. Both the claims were taken up and disposed of together by the Tribunal. The claimant Elumalai in MCOP No. 184 of 2005 filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- and another claimant Muthulakshmi in MCOP No. 186 of 2005 filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-. 3. In support of the claims, the claimant Muthulakshmi was examined as P.W.1. and the other claimant Elumalai was examined as P.W.2. Dr. Ravindar, was examined as P.W.3. Documents Exs. A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. However, no document was filed on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 4. The Tribunal, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent and equally responsible for the accident. Accordingly, the negligence was apportioned equally on the drivers of both the vehicles and 50% of the liability to compensate the claimant was fixed on the appellant transport corporation. 5. On this issue, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that since the F.I.R. clearly states that the driver of the van was rash and negligent, the Tribunal erred in holding that the negligence was also on the part of the driver of the bus in which, the claimants travelled. 6. This contention cannot be accepted. Appellant is not able to establish before the Tribunal that the statements of the claimants were erroneous and contrary to facts and that there are other materials viz., motor vehicles inspection report, mahazar or sketch, to prove that the negligence was entirely on the part of the van driver. The Tribunal has considered the evidence on record oral and documentary and come to the conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent. Such finding cannot be brushed aside on a mere statement in the First Information Report. Since no material has been placed by the appellant in support of this plea, in an admitted case of collision between two vehicles, the findings of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal on negligence and the apportionment of the liability stands confirmed. The next question will be on the quantum of compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. In CMA No. 605 of 2009 which is the subject matter of MCOP No. 184 of 2005:- The injured claimant Elumalai suffered fracture of the nasal bone and was treated at Villupuram Government Hospital. He has stated that he was an agricultural coolie and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. The accident, in this case happened on 8.5.2000. The disability has been assessed at 20% under Ex.A6 but it was reduced to 15% by the Tribunal. Based on the evidence of the Doctor, the wound certificate, the disability certificate and other factors, the Tribunal awarded the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Disability Rs.30,000/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- 3 Transport expenses, extra nourishment, damage to cloths and articles and medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 50,000/- 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sum of Rs.30,000/- for the disability assessed at 20% but reduced to 15% is excessive and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 9. This Court is not inclined to accept such a plea for the following reason. The accident happened on 8.5.2000. The accident is not in dispute. The injured claimant was 28 years old agricultural coolie at that point of time. The disability has been assessed by the Doctor at 20% for which, the injured claimant will be entitled to a sum of atleast Rs.20,000/- and the excess amount of Rs.10,000/- can be adjusted towards loss of income during the period of treatment, attender charges and also towards transport expenses, medical expenses, extra nourishment and damage to cloths and articles for which meager amount is granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the excess amount if any can be adjusted on one or other heads and the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction. 10. In CMA No. 606 of 2009 which is the subject matter of MCOP No. 186 of 2005:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The injured claimant Muthulakshmi, 30 years old agricultural coolie, suffered right hand fracture in the same accident. The disability has been assessed at 40% but reduced by the Tribunal to 30%. The Tribunal, considering the materials on record, granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Disability Rs.60,000/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- 3 Transport expenses, extra nourishment, damage to cloths and articles and medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 90,000/- 11. The injured claimant, Muthulakshmi, 30 years old agricultural coolie suffered fracture of the right hand in the same accident. For the disability assessed at 40% which was reduced to 30% by the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- atleast. No good reason is given as to why the disability is reduced. The excess amount of Rs.20,000/- can be adjusted towards loss of income during the period of treatment, attender charges and also towards transport expenses, extra nourishment, medical expenses and damage to cloths and articles for which meager amount is granted. Therefore, the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction. 12. Further, after after lapse of eight years, the claimants are yet to receive the compensation for the injuries suffered by them in the accident. Hence, this Court is not inclined to prolong the agony of the claimants any further, particularly in view of their illiteracy and economic poverty as both the claimants are agricultural coolies. This Court is unable to find any good reason to reduce the quantum of compensation any further. 13. The interest granted at 7.5% is justified and the same is confirmed as the accident happened in the year 2000 and the award was passed in the year 2008. 14. In the result, both the civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ra To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Judge), Villupuram. + 2 CC To Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate SR NO.8048 & 8049 CMA Nos.605 & 606/2009 CK {CO} TP/25.3.09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/