BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:13/03/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A. No.585 of 2001 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division I) Limited, rep. by its Managing Director Madurai Formerly Known as Pandiyan Roadways Corporation. .. Appellant (CT accepted vide as per Order of Court dt. 19.4.2001 made in C.M.P.6305/2001 by PSDJ) Vs M.Kadiresan .. Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 10.11.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.432 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Madurai. !For Appellant ... Mr.D.Sivaraman ^For Respondent ... No Appearance :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated dated
10.11.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.432 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Madurai.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite printing the
name of the respondent, no one appeared.
3. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 10.11.2000,
to a tune of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) on the following sub-
heads:
(i) For Permanent Disability - Rs.30,000.00 (ii) For Taking nutritious food - Rs. 2,000.00 (iii)For Pain and sufferings - Rs.10,000.00 (iv) For Loss of income during treatment period and convalescent period - Rs. 3,000.00 -------------- Total - Rs.45,000.00 --------------
4. Challenging the liability fixed by the Tribunal as against the
Transport Corporation to pay the compensation, this appeal has been focussed on
the main ground that the driver of the bus even though drove the bus in
proper manner inside the bus stand, the injured invited the accident by trying
to board the running bus in a rash and negligent manner. In the grounds of
appeal the appellant would raise contention to the effect that the Tribunal
without discussing and appreciating the evidence simply fastened the liability
on the driver of the Transport Corporation.
5. During trial, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 and P.W.2 were
examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked and on the side of respondent R.W.1 was
examined. There was no documentary evidence adduced on the side of the
respondent.
6. Point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in
fixing the negligence on the part of the driver in causing accident?
7.Point: The learned counsel for the appellant would placing reliance on
the deposition of R.W.1, the driver of the bus, develop his argument to the
effect that the injured in the process of attempting to board the moving bus
inside the bus stand, invited the accident and there was no negligence on the
part of the driver in driving the vehicle. The deposition of P.W.1 the injured,
would be to the effect that while he was standing in the bus stand at the place
where there Trichy buses were parked normally, the bus driver, R.W.1 came
driving the offending bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him
and thereby he was made to sustain two fractures in his left leg. During cross
examination of P.W.1 it was suggested by the appellant as though P.W.1 attempted
to board the moving bus and in that process alone he fell down and sustained
injuries. Inside the bus stand the driver of the bus was expected to drive
cautiously and slowly. The conductor of the bus as well as the driver should
have been cautious and they should have acted swiftly in slowing the bus on
seeing P.W.1 attempting to board allegedly the moving bus. But in this case it
was not done so. It is ex-facie and prima-face clear from the narration of the
accident that the driver of the bus cannot be exonerated from the liability.
Consequently the Transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation
amount. As such I could see no merits in this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant would convincingly argue that
the interest awarded at 12% p.a., is on the higher side. Considering the fact
that the award was passed during the year 2000 the interest awarded is reduced
to 9% p.a. in commensurate with the rate prevailing at that time.
9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. However, the rate of the
interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% p.a. is reduced to 9% p.a. In other
aspects the award shall hold good. No costs.
sj/pm
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(II Additional District Judge)
Madurai.