IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.512 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Dharmapuri .. Appellant/Respondent Vs R.Ganesan .. Respondent/Petitioner Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree, dated 24.04.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri. For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran For respondent : Mr.M.Devaraj J U D G M E N T The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 24.04.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,01,750/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2.Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3.The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was studying second year of Diploma in Electronics Communication Engineering in Sugar Mill Polytechnic at Palacode. On 19.01.2005, he came from Dharmapuri to Palacode, to attend the college, through the respondent's Corporation bus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bearing registration No.TN29 N0895. The driver stopped the bus in the bus stand and the passengers alighted at the bus stop. When the petitioner was in the process of alighting from the bus, through the back foot board, the driver of the bus, without ensuring that all the passengers had alighted, started the bus suddenly. Due to the sudden starting of the bus, the petitioner lost his balance and fell down from the steps. As a result, he sustained multiple injuries in his right foot, leg, right side of chest, right side of upper limbs, multiple injuries all over the body and three fingers in his right foot were cut. Immediately after the said accident, he was rushed to Palacode Government Hospital for treatment. From there he was referred to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, wherein he underwent treatment as inpatient. The petitioner further submitted that at the time of the said accident, he was aged about 19 years old and was studying in Sugar Mill Polytechnic Palacode in the second year. Further, he was doing a part time job in an Electronic Service Centre and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to the said accident he is unable to perform his work as he used to do prior to the said accident. Further, the petitioner was the only breadwinner of his family and he is not able to do normal and regular work also. He has contributed all the income towards the welfare of his family. Further, the petitioner submitted that he spent more than Rs.25,000/- towards medical treatment. The petitioner further submitted that the accident was registered at the Palacode Police Station in Crime No.33 of 2005 under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. against the driver of the bus. Further, he submitted that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the said accident had happened. As such, the respondent is liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest. 4.The respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim, which is sought by the petitioner. The respondent denied the accident itself and has stated that no such accident has taken place as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner has sustained injuries due to some other cause. It has been stated that the allegation of the petitioner that he had alighted from the back foot board of the corporation bus was false. The respondent has further denied the allegation of the petitioner that he lost his balance and fell down from the bus, due to sudden starting of the bus and sustained injuries all over his body. It has been stated that the respondent does not admit the age and academic qualification of the petitioner and occupation, income etc., Further, the respondent submitted that the claim amount is excessive and the petition is not maintainable. Hence, he has prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 5.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent's Corporation bus? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get? 6.On the petitioner's side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On the respondent's side one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 7.The petitioner was examined as PW1. The PW1, in his evidence, had adduced evidence stating that at the time of the accident, he was studying in Sugar Mill Polytechnic, Palacode. On 19.01.2005, while he was alighting from the respondent's bus through rear side foot board, the driver of the bus all of a sudden started the bus. In the result, the claimant lost his balance and fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Further, the PW1 adduced evidence stating that the said accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. To prove the said accident, FIR, Ex.P1 was registered by Palacode Police Officer against the driver of the bus. As per the FIR, the driver of the bus is facing criminal proceedings. The FIR disclosed that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the accident had happened. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the PW1 and Ex.P1, came to the conclusion that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. As such, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimant as claimed by him. The PW1, further adduced evidence that at the time of the said accident he was 19 years old. Further, he was doing part time job in an Electronics Service Centre. The PW1 further adduced that due to the said accident, his right leg, right chest and right thigh were fractured and that he had sustained injuries all over his body. On his right leg, three fingers were cut. Supporting his nature of injuries, the PW1 marked Ex.P2, Wound Certificate, which reveals that the claimant sustained three grievous injuries. One Dr.Ashok Kumar was also examined as PW2. The PW2, in his evidence has stated that he examined the petitioner. After taking X'ray, he assessed the disability stating that due to the said accident he had sustained 15% disability. 8.Considering the nature of injuries, mode of treatment, age and occupation of the claimant, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.5,500/- under the head of medical expenses, on the strength of Ex.P3, medical bill series; Rs.6,750/- under the head of transport expenses, on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the strength of Ex.P4; Rs.3,000/- under the head of nutrition; Rs.1,000/- under the head of attendant charges; Rs.500/- under the head of damages to clothes; Rs.20,000/- under the head of marriage prospects diminishing and basic amenities and Rs.15,000/- under the head of disability. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,01,750/- as compensation to the petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. The Tribunal, further directed the respondent to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two weeks from the date of its order and in turn the said amount was to be deposited in any one of a nationalised bank, for a period of three years, in a fixed deposit scheme. The Tribunal permitted the petitioner to withdraw the interest once in six months from the bank. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.5,100/-. 9.Aggreived by the said Award and Decree, dated 24.04.2006, in M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the award granted by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering, medical expenses, transport expenses, nutrition, attendant charges and disability are all on the higher side. The learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal, without considering the evidence of the respondent and other connected documents, which were marked by the claimant, had erroneously granted the award in favour of the claimant. Hence, the learned counsel prays to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 11.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the compensation amount of Rs.1,01,750/- awarded together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is fair and equitable. The learned counsel further argued that only after considering the documentary evidence, which were marked as exhibits and after hearing PW2 witness, who deposed evidence on behalf of the petitioner stating that the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that at the time of the said accident, the claimant was aged about 19 years old and was doing part time job in an Electronics Service Centre and he was supporting his family by way of his income. After the said accident, the claimant is unable to do his normal work. Therefore, his study has also been affected. The learned counsel further argued that the quantum of compensation is a well considered one and there is no error. As such, the compensation granted by the Tribunal may be confirmed. Hence, the learned counsel prays to dismiss the appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of the findings of the Tribunal and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that at the time of the said accident, the claimant's age was 19 and he was a student in Sugar Mill Polytechnic at Palacode. Further, considering the age, his part time job and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant due to the said accident, this Court is of the view that the compensation amount of Rs.1,01,750/- is fair and equitable. As such, this Court is declines to interfere with the Award and Decree, dated 24.04.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri. 13.On 07.03.2007, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.65,000/-, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of four weeks from the date of its Order. After such deposit was made, the claimant was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- with accrued interest, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri. 14.Now, this Court directs the appellant/The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri to deposit the balance compensation amount of Rs.36,750/- together with entire interest on the award granted at the rate of 7.5%, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, subject to the deduction of earlier deposit, if any. 15.After such deposit is made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance compensation amount with interest thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri, subject to the deduction of earlier withdrawal. 16.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 24.04.2006, in M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ krk To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.M.Devaraj, Advocate Sr 20170 +1cc to Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran, Advocate Sr 19483 LA(CO) km/4.6. C.M.A.No.512 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/