IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.10.2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3233 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 ............ The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division .. Appellant Vs. Adhikesavan ..respondent . . . Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 10.3.2008 in MCOP No. 162 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, FTC-II. . . . For Appellant : Mr. B. Vijayalakshmi For Respondents : --- -------- JUDGMENT
The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award and decree dated 10.3.2008 in MCOP No. 162 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, FTC-II, Tindivanam,.
2. It is case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 1.11.2000. The claimant in the case Adikesavan and a co-student Sathiaraj travelled in the appellant Corporation bus from Thenkodipakkam to Omanthur. The driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and applied the break suddenly. The two students were thrown out of the vehicle. On alert, the bus was stopped after 10 feet from the place of the accident. In this accident the two students suffered injuries. The two students were admitted to Tindivanam Government Hospital for treatment. F.I.R. was registered against the driver of the bus for offences under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. in Cr.No. 720 of 2000 on the file of the Kiliyanur Police Station. Both the injured boys filed claim petitions for compensation. The present injured claimant claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation.
3. In support of the claim petition, the injured claimant in the present case was examined as P.W.1 and the other student was examined as P.W.2. Dr. Ponnappan was examined as P.W.3. Documents Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. Ex.P1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.P2 is the copy of the accident register. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate. Ex.P4 is the prescription given to P.W.1. Ex.P5 is the x-rays issued to P.W.1. Ex.P6 is the copy of the accident register issued to P.W.2. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate issued to P.W.2. Ex.P8 is the disability certificate issued to P.W.1. Ex.P9 is the x-ray issued to P.W.1. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the tribunal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal discussed the oral and documentary evidence and came to the conclusion that even though the two students were travelling near the foot board at the time of the accident, the conductor and the driver of the bus committed serious mistake by allowing the over crowding of the bus beyond its permitted capacity and by allowing the people to stand and travel on and near the foot board. It also observed that the conductor of the bus was not examined to show that there was contributory negligence on the part of the students. The Tribunal further held that the conductor should have cautioned the passengers and should have refused to move the vehicle which was running beyond its permitted capacity. The non examination of the conductor, according to the Tribunal, was fatal to the case of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. Since the injury was caused to two students, bona fide passengers, consequent to the falling down from the bus and holding that the conductor and driver of the bus have not taken proper care and caution, the liability was fixed on the appellant transport Corporation. This finding is not seriously disputed.
5. As regards the compensation insofar as the MCOP No. 53 of 2007 filed by another injured claimant Sathiaraj, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. In the present case viz., MCOP No. 162 of 2007, the nature of injuries is as follows:-
” 1. abrasion of 2 x 1 c.m. With contusion on the left knee.
2. abrasion on the right knee 10 x 4 c.m.
3. abrasion of 4 cm back of the right leg.
4. abrasion of 3 x 1 c.m. Lateral aspect of the right thigh.
5. abrasion of 1 x 1 cm of the right foot.
6. abrasion of 1 cm in the left flank
7. abrasion of 2 x 1 cm on left elbow.
The doctor opined that 7 injuries were simple in nature. He further stated that x-ray of right ankle shows fracture of the base of the Ist metatarsal bone, which was grievous in nature.”
6. The disability was assessed at 14% under Ex.P8. Considering the fact that the injured claimant, who was a student, and treated at Tindivanam Government Hospital. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.54,000/- as compensation on the following heads with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Disability at 14%
Rs.14,000/-
2
Pain and suffering
Rs.10,000/-
3
Shock and mental agony
Rs.10,000/-
4
Loss of amenities
Rs. 5,000/-
5
Medical treatment
Rs. 5,000/-
6
Transport expenses
Rs. 5,000/-
7
Extra nourishment
Rs. 5,000/-
Total
Rs. 54,000/-
7. As far as the MCOP No. 53 of 2007 is concerned, the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant corporation bus and the liability of the appellant to compensate the claimant as well as compensation with interest at 9% p.a. has been accepted by the transport corporation and no appeal has been filed. Therefore, in the present case, the appellant cannot raise the issue with regard to the liability or the interest.
8. As regards the quantum of compensation, considering the nature of injuries suffered as has been extracted above, the disability assessed and the fact that the student was out of school for some time and that he suffered injuries all over the body, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not require further reduction.
9. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, MP No. 1 of 2008 is also dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same.
ra
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
FTC-II,
Tindivanam