IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 MFA.No. 74 of 2003(B) --------------------- OPMV.720/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT: 1ST RESPONDENT ------------- MANAGING DIRECTOR, NESAMONY TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NOW KNOWN AS TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (MADURAI - DIVISION-III) LTD. NAGARCOIL. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS ------------------ A.RASSALAYYAN, KIZHAKKEKKARA PUTHENVEEDU, PERUTHIPPARA, KOVILLOOR, AMBOORI P.O. NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- M.F.A.No.74 of 2003 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the first respondent, owner of a stage carriage bus bearing Registration No.TN74/N 0080. The first respondent filed the original petition impleading the appellant and two others. It is alleged that while the petitioner was boarding into the bus, the second respondent, conductor, negligently gave signal, and suddenly the driver took the bus forward. The respondent lost his balance and fell down, and the wheel on the rear side ran over the body of the petitioner and he sustained injuries. Respondents filed a joint written statement disputing the negligence alleged against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. It also found that the first respondent was entitled to get a compensation of Rs.93,700/=, and directed the respondents to pay the amount. First respondent, owner of the bus, has filed this appeal challenging the award. MFA. No. 74 of 2003 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued before me that the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus is unsustainable. It is argued that the quantum of compensation fixed is also very exorbitant. The first respondent gave evidence as PW.1. He produced Exts.A1 to A12 to substantiate his contention. Ext.A1 is the F.I.R. Registered against the driver of the bus. After investigation, police filed Ext.A5 final report alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of PW.1. I do not find any reason to discard his evidence, which was corroborated by F.I.R. and final report. So, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus is confirmed. The evidence on record show that the respondent sustained very serious injuries. Ext.A11 is the disability certificate issued by the Assistant Professor of Orthopedics. The doctor assessed the disability to 15%. The disability certificate shows that the first respondent sustained compound fracture femur (R) and type II compound fracture both bones (R) leg. Considering all aspects of the matter, the Tribunal fixed the disability to 10%, and awarded compensation. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.12,000/= MFA. No. 74 of 2003 3 on account of the loss of amenities. I do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded also. There is no merit in the appeal, and the same is only to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- M.F.A.No. 74 of 2003 J U D G M E N T Dated: 4th January, 2008. -------------------------------