BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13/03/2006
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
C.M.A.(MD)No.969 of 1998
The Managing Director
Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation
Madras-2 ... Appellant
Vs
1. V.R.Balasubramanian
2. Chinnappan
3. Divisional Office II
United India Insurance Co.,Ltd
74-A, Salai Road,
Trichy .. Respondents
Prayer
Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the
Judgment and decree dated 21.1.1998 and made in MCOP No.832/1992 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(3rd Additional District Judge)Trichy.
!For Appellant ... Mr.D.Sivaraman
for M/s.Rajinish Pathiyil
^For respondents ... Mr.C.Ramesh-R1
M/s N.Rosi Naidu-R3
:JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.
832 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(III Additional
District Court), Trichy. The State Transport Corporation is the appellant
herein.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The claimant is aged 52 and he was working as a teacher earning a sum of
Rs.3234/- per mensum towards his salary. On 26.1.1992, when the claimant had
travelled in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-0242 which belonged to the
first respondent and when the bus was nearing Sambandampalayam, a lorry bearing
Registration No.TCC 9993 came from the opposite direction was driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bus bearing
Registration No.TN-01-N-0242 wherein the claimant was a passenger. Due to the
accident, the claimant had sustained injuries in both the legs and tibia bones
in both the legs got fractured. The accident had occurred only due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-
0242. The claimant had claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation.
3. The first respondent in its counter has stated that on 26.1.1992, the
bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-0242 belonging to the first respondent was
driven by its driver by observing the traffic rules in a moderate speed and
when the bus reached Karapalayam at about 4.00a.m., the lorry bearing
Registration No.TCC 9993 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
from the opposite side dashed against the bus and the accident had occurred only
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing
Registration No.TCC 9993.
4. The second respondent remained exparte.
5. The third respondent in its counter has stated that the third
respondent is the insured of the vehicle belonging to the second respondent.
The second respondent had to prove that his driver had valid driving licence to
drive the lorry at the time of the accident. The lorry was stationed and the
driver of the bus had driven the bus so rashly and negligently and dashed
against the stationed lorry. Hence the first respondent alone is liable to pay
the compensation if any amount to be awarded to the claimant and the petition
is liable to be dismissed as against the respondents 2 and 3.
6. Before the Tribunal, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs P1 to P24 were
marked on the side of the claimant and neither documentary nor oral evidence was
let in on the side of the respondents.
7. The learned Tribunal, after going through the oral and documentary
evidence let in by both the petitioner and the respondents, had come to a
conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,76,156/- with 12% interest
from the date of petition till the date of realisation and costs. Aggrieved by
the award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.832 of 1992 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(III Additional District Judge) Trichy,
the first respondent/State Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.
8. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the
compensation awarded for the claimant in M.C.O.P.No. 832 of 1992 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal( III Additional District Judge)Tirchy dated
21.1.1998 is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of
appeal in C.M.A.No.969 of 1998?
9. The Point :
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that
according to P.W.2 the Doctor, the claimant P.W.1 had sustained 79% disability
but it is likely to be reduced to maximum 20%. But the learned Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant would further contend that even under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, for the amputation of a leg below the knee to be taken as 60%
disability but if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
taken to be correct then for 59% of the permanent disability, the Tribunal ought
to have awarded a sum of Rs.59,000/- towards compensation. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant would further contend that the Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses which was not asked for in
the claim petition and even P.W.,2 the Doctor has not spoken to about the future
medical treatment for the claimant. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 the
Doctor will go to show that the claimant had sustained fracture in both the legs
and the permanent disability has been assessed by the Doctor as 79%, the Doctor
has not mentioned anything about the requirement of the future medical treatment
for the claimant. In the cross examination of P.W.2, the Doctor had admitted
that both the fractured bones have united but he would depose that there was mal
union of the bones and that the claimant had once again joined in his regular
job as a techer. But nowhere, he had stated that the claimant has to undergo for
another surgery. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would contend that the award of Rs.25,000/- by the learned Tribunal
under the head of future medical treatment is unwarranted. The contention of
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has got some force and the award
of Rs.25,000/- under the head of future medical expenses is to be withdrawn,
instead a sum of Rs.9,000/- more is to be awarded for the head of permanent
disability, since the Tribunal has awarded only Rs 50,000/- for permanent
disability. Apart from this, nothing was agitated before this Court regarding
the compensation. So if a sum of Rs.16,000/- is reduced, from the award of
Rs.2,76,156/- then the award of compensation to which the respondent/claimant
will be entitled to comes to Rs.2,60,156/-. Hence I hold on the point that the
award passed in M.C.O.P.No.832 of 1992 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(III Additional District Judge)
Trichy is liable to be reduced and fixed as Rs.2,60,156/- with 12% interest from
the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. The point is
answered accordingly.
10. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the award of
compensation is reduced and fixed as Rs.2,60,156/-(Rupees Two Lakhs sixty
thousand and one hundred fifty six only) with 12% interest from the date of
filing of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would represent that the entire
award amount has been deposited and the claimant has already withdrawn 50% of
the award amount. So the appellant is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.16,000/-
with proportionate interest. Out of the balance of award amount, the claimant is
permitted to withdraw 25% of the award amount with proportionate interest. The
balance award amount is to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Bank in
the Fixed Deposit for a period of three years. The claimant is entitled to
withdraw accrued interest in the Fixed Deposit once in three months. No costs.
sg
ToThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(III Additional District Judge)
Tiruchi