Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,rep.by its Managing Director,Kumbakonam v. Thairiyam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.12.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S.KARNANC.M.A.No.1590 of 2003Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,rep.by its Managing Director,Kumbakonam.. AppellantVsThairiyam .. Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,against the Award and Decree dated 22.01.2003, made inM.A.C.T.O.P.No.25 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.For appellant : Mr.M.KrishnamurthyFor respondent : Mr.V.KathiravanJ U D G M E N TThe above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by theappellant/respondent against the Award and Decree dated 22.01.2003,made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.25 of 2002, on the file of the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal, Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, awardinga compensation of Rs.49,500/- with 9% interest per annum, from thedate of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.2.Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/respondent,Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Kumbakonam, has filed the above appeal praying to set-aside the awardand decree passed by the Tribunal.3.The short facts of the case are as follows:On 13.04.2001, at 6.30 hrs, the petitioner was travelling in thebus bearing registration No.TN49 N0273 as a passenger. On the sameday, at about 10.00 hrs, while the said bus was plying on the SambavaMain Road and driven by its driver with great care and caution, thebus bearing registration No.TN49 N0773, driven in a rash andnegligent manner dashed against the bus bearing registration No.TN49N0273. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained grievousinjuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was takento Government Hospital, Mannargudi, where he was admitted as in-patient. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligentdriving of the bus bearing registration No.TN49 N0773, by itsdriver. A criminal case has been registered as Crime No.62/2001,under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. by the Needamangalam PoliceStation, against the bus driver of the said bus and the same ispending investigation before the Judicial Magistrate No.I,Mannargudi. The petitioner was an agricultural coolie and earning asum of Rs.4,500/- per month before the accident. After the accident,he has not been able to do his work.5.Hence, the respondent as the owner of the said bus is liableto pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed acompensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent, with interest andcosts under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.6.The respondent, in his Counter has resisted the claim statingthat on 13.04.2001, when the respondent's bus bearing registrationNo.TN49 N0773 was coming from Kudanthai towards Pattukottai, it wasraining heavily. At the alleged time of accident, there was hayspread over the road. When the bus was coming near Sambaveli, thebus driver noticed another bus coming in the opposite direction. So,the bus driver, who was driving the bus at a moderate speed, in orderto give way to the bus coming on the opposite side, took his bus tothe left side of the road. But, as there was wet hay in front of thebus, the bus started to slip out of the road on to a farm land on theleft and so in order to prevent the bus from skidding of the road,the bus driver turned to the right and in the process the bus brushedagainst the bus coming from the opposite direction. As such, thesecond respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Further,the petitioner's age, income and occupation were not admitted astrue. As such, the second respondent has prayed for dismissal of thepetition.7.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for theconsideration namely:(i)Was the accident caused due to the rashness ofbus driver and high speed at which he had driventhe bus?(ii)Is the petitioner entitled to receivecompensation? If so, what is the quantum ofcompensation, which he is entitled to?8.On the petitioner's side, a witness was examined as PW1 andfour documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4. On the respondent sideone witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. TheMotor Accident Claims Tribunal heard the arguments advanced on eithersides and scrutinised the documents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.The petitioner on being examined as PW1 has adduced evidencethat on 13.04.2001, at 6.30 a.m. when he was travelling as apassenger in the bus bearing registration No.TN49 N0273 and when itwas nearing Sambaveli, the respondent's bus bearing registrationNo.TN49 N0773, driven with high speed and in a rash and negligentmanner by its driver, had dashed against the bus bearing registrationNo.TN49 N0273, as a result of which the petitioner had sustainedinjuries on his chest and left leg. Further, the Tribunal onscrutiny of Ex.P1-FIR, found that the evidence of PW1 is inconsonance, with the version in FIR.10.On the respondent's side the driver of the bus bearingregistration No.TN49 N0773 was examined as RW1. The RW1 in hisevidence has adduced that the accident was not caused due to hisnegligence. He has stated that he was driving the bus at moderatespeed and on seeing the bus coming on opposite side, he had taken hisbus to the left side. But as there was wet lay in front of the bus,his bus tended to skid out of the road and so he had dashed his busagainst the bus coming from the opposite direction. The Tribunal, onconsidering the fact that both the buses involved in the accidentbelonged to the respondent, decided that the respondent is liable topay compensation to the petitioner.11.The Tribunal, then considered the issue of quantum ofcompensation payable to the petitioner. On a scrutiny of Ex.P4, itis seen that the petitioner had taken treatment as an in-patient atMannargudi Government Hospital for a period of seven days. From ascrutiny of Ex.P3-Wound Certificate issued by the Hospital, it isseen that the petitioner had sustained a grievous injury in the areabetween the chest and shoulder and a simple injury on his right leg.The Tribunal on consideration of the nature of these injuries grantedan award of Rs.30,000/-. Though the petitioner has claimed that hewas earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as no documentary evidencewas furnished in support of this, the Tribunal considered that thesalary of the petitioner could only be taken as Rs.1,500/- per month.The Tribunal considering the fact that the petitioner had been an in-patient for seven days at the Hospital and taking into account thathe may need another three months to become normal and go to workassessed his loss of income for three months as Rs.4,500/-. For painand suffering, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- and formedical expenses and transport expenses, a sum of Rs.5,000/- wasgranted by the Tribunal. In total, the Tribunal granted a sum ofRs.49,500/- as award to the petitioner and directed the respondent todeposit the said award together with interest at the rate of 9% perannum from the date of filing the petition till the date of paymentof compensation, into the credit of the M.A.C.T.O.P.No.25 of 2002, onthe file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, within a period of two months from thedate of its Order. After such deposit was made, the petitioner waspermitted to withdraw the entire award. The Court fee was fixed asRs.108.75 and the excess Court fee paid by the petitioner was to berefunded to him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in hisappeal that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the appellant'sdriver was rash and negligent in driving the bus and was responsiblefor the accident; that the Tribunal had erred in awarding acompensation of Rs.49,500/- as compensation for injuries that werenot even discussed by the Tribunal. Further, the award ofRs.30,000/- granted by the Tribunal as compensation only for injuriessustained by the petitioner is arbitrary and not sustainable.Rs.10,000/- granted towards pain and suffering is also excessive andthe award granted towards transport charges is also erroneous as noacceptable evidence has been furnished in support of this. As such,the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for re-considerationof the award granted to the petitioner.13.The learned counsel for the respondent argued that both thebuses involved in the accident belonged to the appellant Corporationand as such the appellant Corporation is solely responsible to paythe compensation to the claimant. Due to this accident, the claimanthas sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted at GovernmentHospital, Mannargudi, as in-patient. The claimant is an agriculturalcoolie and after he was injured in the accident, he is unable to workas an agricultural coolie. He is the only breadwinner of his familyand he was maintaining his family on income earned by doingagricultural work, as a coolie. The Tribunal awarded a sum ofRs.10,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.4,500/- for loss of income;Rs.5,000/- for medical and transport expenses and Rs.30,000/- forinjuries. As such, there is no infirmity in the said award passed bythe Tribunal.14.For the foregoing reasons, facts and circumstances of thecase, arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either sides, theCourt is of the view that the claimant is an agricultural coolie andis dependant on his physical strength to earn his income. In thesaid accident, he had sustained injuries in the area between hischest and shoulder and also on his right leg. Considering the natureof injuries and occupation of claimant, the loss of income ofRs.4,500/- granted by the Tribunal is fair.15.Though no Disability Certificate has been produced to showthe percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner andconsequent loss of future earnings, the Tribunal on considering thenature of work as well as the grievous injury sustained by theclaimant had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards this. As such,this Court considering the claimant, who is depending on his physicalstrength to earn his income has definitely been handicapped by theaccident holds that he has suffered loss of future earnings andaccordingly the sum of Rs.30,000/- granted by Tribunal for injuriescould also be treated as an award under the head of loss of futureearnings incurred by the petitioner. Hence, this Court confirms theaward of Rs.30,000/- passed by the Tribunal. The other awardsgranted namely Rs.10,000/- under the heads of pain and suffering and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.5,000/- under the head of transport and medical expenses isreasonable and fair.16.The award and decree passed by the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, inM.A.C.T.O.P.No.25 of 2002, is therefore confirmed by this Court.17.At the time of admission, this Court permitted the claimantto withdraw 50% of the award amount, along with accrued interest tillthe date of deposit, without furnishing security. Now, this Courtpermits the respondent/claimant to withdraw the rest of thecompensation amount with accrued interest, lying the credit of theM.A.C.T.O.P.No.25 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, by filingnecessary payment out application, in accordance with law.18.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isdismissed and the award and decree passed by the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagapattinam, inM.A.C.T.O.P.No.25 of 2002, is confirmed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkrkTo1. The Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, The Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.M.Krishnamoorthi, Advocate, SR.31368 C.M.A.No.1590 of 2003AR(CO)sra 20.01.2010