JUDGMENT
A. Ramamurthi, J.
1. The Transport Corporation-respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1861 of 1996 on the file of Vth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, has preferred the appeal aggrieved against the award dated 16.2.1999.
2. The case in brief is as follows:-
The claimant travelled in the Transport Corporation bus route No.32 on 17.4.1996 and at about 7.30 p.m. when she wanted to get down from the bus stop, the driver took the bus suddenly and as a result of which, she fell down and sustained injuries. She claimed a sum of Rs.60,000/- by way of compensation.
3. The respondent Corporation resisted the application stating that the claimant travelled in the bus and attempted to get down with luggage and fell down and sustained injuries. In short, the claimant had sustained injuries because of her negligence and for which, no compensation is payable.
4. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the claimant and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. The driver of the Corporation was examined as R.W.1. The trial court awarded a sum of Rs.46,500/- (Rupees forty six thousand and five hundred only) by way of compensation with interest at 12% from the date of petition till date of deposit. Aggrieved against this, the Corporation has come forward with the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 travelled in the bus belonging to the Corporation on 17.4.1996 and sustained injuries. P.W.1 categorically stated that when she attempted to get down from the bus, it was immediately taken and she fell down and sustained injuries. However, R.W.1 stated that P.W.1 was having luggage and while getting down, she fell down and sustained injuries and for which, he is not responsible. However, R.W.1 alone took P.W.1 to the hospital and admitted her. It is the duty of the driver to find out whether all the passengers have got down before taking the bus. It was not duly observed by R.W.1 driver of the Corporation and therefore, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent act of the driver.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the assessment of disability at 50% is excessive. P.W.1 had sustained head injuries and four sutures were made. Apart from that, she had also sustained the fracture in the left hand and injury in the neck also. She was an in-patient in the Stanley Hospital for six days. Ex.P1 is the medical record to prove the same. P.W.2 the Doctor also stated that plastic surgery was done to P.W.1 and the disability certificate was given as 50%. P.W.1 was aged about 54 at the time of accident and she got a sum of Rs.500/- p.m. by doing household work. Considering the totality of the circumstances and also the permanent disability, the trial court awarded a sum of Rs.46,500/- (Rupees forty six thousand and five hundred only) by way of compensation. It cannot be said to be excessive. However, so far as the interest is concerned, it can be reduced to 9% from 12%.
8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part and the rate of interest alone is reduced to 9% from 12%. In other respects, the award is confirmed. Consequently C.M.P.No.800 of 2002 is closed.