1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.11.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA C.M.A.(MD)No.1675 of 2010 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli, represented by its Managing Director .. Appellant/Respondent Vs Kothalamuthu @ Muthu .. Respondent/Petitioner Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 13.10.2005 made in MCOP No.158 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Aruppukottai. For Appellant : Mr.R.Janakiramulu JUDGMENT The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the award dated 13.10.2005 made in MCOP No.158 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Aruppukottai. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The injured-Kothalamuthu @ Muthu met with motor traffic accident that took place on 27.11.2000 at about 10.30 hours. The said injured was riding TVS-50 moped bearing Registration No.TN-67-C-2416 from West to East direction in the Pandalgudi to Vilathikulam Main Road, keeping the extreme left side of the road. When he was nearing Chennamareddiapatty Village, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-72-N-0680 belonging to the appellant- Transport Corporation came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed and hit the moped which the injured was riding. Due to the said impact, the injured-claimant sustained grievous injuries. He claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant / Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Who is responsible for the accident? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to get 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.35,000/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Rupees Loss due to 24% disability 30,000/- Pain and suffering 5,000/- --------------- Total... 35,000/- ================ 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. On the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1, and no document was marked. Witness documents Exs.W1 to W3 were also marked. P.W.1 is the injured-claimant. P.W.2 is the Doctor. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the Accident Register of the injured. Ex.P3 is the copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.W1 is the Disability Certificate of the injured. Ex.W2 is the X-ray of the injured. Ex.W3 is the Treatment Register pertaining to the injured. 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-claimant was 34 years old. P.W.1 is the injured-claimant. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that he is a Petty Shop owner and earning a sum of Rs.150/- per day. Further, in his evidence, it is stated that only the driver of the bus caused the accident and the driver was charge-sheeted by Pandalkudi Police Station in Crime No.103 of 2000 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Due to the accident, he sustained the following injuries:- 1)Fracture IV metacarpal base(Rt), 2)Fracture of both bones of (Rt) forearm, 3)Crush injury on his (Rt) hand and 4)Multiple abrasion over (Rt) side of chest. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai and later he was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Due to the injuries he is unable to move his right hand and cannot lift any heavy articles and not able to do the work as before. Ex.W3 is the Treatment Register given by the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. It also corroborates with the fractures and injuries sustained by the claimant. P.W.2, the Doctor examined the claimant and assessed the disability at 24%. Ex.W1 is the Disability Certificate of the injured. Ex.W2 is the X-ray of the injured. Ex.W3 is the Treatment Register pertaining to the injured. P.W.2, the Doctor, in his evidence, has also stated that the injured is unable to do the work as before. After https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss due to 24% disability. Normally the Courts award a sum of Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per percentage of disability. In the present case, the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss due to 24% disability. It is also very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. After considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is of the view that the amount awarded towards this head is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded the interest rate at 7.5% 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 7.5% 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 27.11.2000 and the date of award is 13.10.2005, this is not a fit case for admission. 6. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2010 is closed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR KM To The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aruppukottai. DM:2011:JANURARY:12: C.M.A.(MD)No.1675 of 2010 23.11.2010 3p:2c:; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/