1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:22.11.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA CMA(MD)No.1676 of 2010 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Division I, Madurai. :Appellant/Respondent -Vs- K.Karuppiah :Respondent/Petitioner Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 24.02.2005 made in MCOP No.69 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Sivakasi. For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman for M/s.Rajnish Pathiyil JUDGMENT The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the judgment and award dated 24.02.2005 made in MCOP No.69 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Sivakasi. 2.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The injured-Karuppiah met with motor traffic accident that took place on 10.01.2001 at about 5.50 a.m. The said injured, along with some others, was on his pilgrimage tour to Thiruchendur, by foot, along the Sathur- Venkatachalam Bridge from North to South direction. At that time, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-58-N-0259 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation, came in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed and hit against the injured and others. Due to the said impact, the injured sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Sathur, where he was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and thereafter, he was admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for a period of 11 days. The injured-claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- as compensation. The appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so, what is the amount and from whom? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 HEADS AMOUNT(Rupees) Injuries 20,000/- Pain and suffering 10,000/- Medical expenses including nutrition, conveyance,etc. 15,000/- Loss of amenities, income and earning power 30,000/- --------------- Total... 75,000/- ================ Aggrieved by that award, the appellant / Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant/ Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and vehemently contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without any basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4.Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that, out of the same accident, some other claim petitions were also filed, before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken up all the claim petitions and disposed of by a common judgment. In respect of the other claimants, there are no details available as to whether the Transport Corporation has filed any appeal or not. In the present case, on the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.6 were examined and documents were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.6 is the Doctor. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of Accident Register. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of M.V.I. Report. Exs.P5 and P7 to P11 are the medical bills Ex.P6 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.P23 is the Disability Certificate Exs.P24 and P25 are the CT Reports. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation. It is a question of fact and it is based on valid materials and evidence. Hence the same is confirmed. 5.At the time of accident, the injured was 42 years old. P.W.1 is the injured. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that he is an agriculturist. He further stated that only the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant- Transport Corporation caused the accident and the driver was charge-sheeted by the Sathur Police Station in Crime No.43 of 2001 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC. Due to the accident, he sustained head injury, facial disfigurement and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Madurai and he took treatment as in-patient for a period of 11 days. Later, he was referred to the Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai for better treatment and he continued his treatment for 27 days. Ex.P6 is the Discharge Summary P.W.6-Dr.G.Vijaya, in her evidence, has stated that the injured took treatment from 20.01.2001 to 15.02.2001 as in-patient. Further, in her evidence, it is stated that the claimant sustained head injury and also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 other multiple injuries all over the body, and also a surgery was done. The Doctor examined the claimant and assessed the disability at 25%. Ex.P23 is the Disability Certificate. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards injuries, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses including nutrition, conveyance, etc. and Rs.30,000/-towards loss of amenities, income and earning power. There is no dispute that the claimant took treatment in the Government Hospital, Madurai and later he took treatment in the Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards these heads are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded the interest rate at 9% p.a., from the date of petition. Taking into consideration the date of accident, date of award and also the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. I do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. The order passed by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. It is a question of fact and it is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and hence the same is confirmed. Since the date of accident is 10.01.2001 and the date of award is 24.02.2005, this is not a fit case for admission. 6.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2010 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To: The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sivakasi. +1CC to Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, Advocate. SR.No.48384. KM RP/11.01.2011/3P/3C. C.M.A.(MD)No.1676 of 2010 22.11.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/