The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Kumbakonam v. A. Elumalai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16.3.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.Nos.605 and 606 of 2009C.M.A.No. 605 of 2009:-The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/Respondent vs.A. Elumalai ... Respondent/PetitionerC.M.A.No. 606 of 2009:-The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/ Respondent vs.Muthulakshmi ... Respondent/PetitionersCivil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988, against the common award and decree dated4.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.184 and 186 of 2005 on the file of theMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Principal Sub Court), Villupuram.For appellant : Mrs. B. Vijayalakshmi-----COMMON JUDGMENTThe appellant transport corporation has filed these twoappeal challenging the common award dated 4.3.2008 passed inM.C.O.P.Nos.184 and 186 of 2005 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal ( Principal Sub Court), Villupuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The facts are common in both the cases. The claimants/respondents in both the cases are injured occupants of the bus whichbelongs to the appellant transport corporation. The bus wasproceeding from Sivaganga to Trichy. According to the appellant, thevan which was coming on the opposite direction, driven in a rash andnegligent manner, hit the bus and in that accident, several personssuffered injuries. The two claimants viz., Elumalai andMuthulakshmi, who travelled in the bus, filed claims forcompensation. Both the claims were taken up and disposed of togetherby the Tribunal. The claimant Elumalai in MCOP No. 184 of 2005filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- and anotherclaimant Muthulakshmi in MCOP No. 186 of 2005 filed a claim forcompensation in a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-. 3. In support of the claims, the claimant Muthulakshmi wasexamined as P.W.1. and the other claimant Elumalai was examined asP.W.2. Dr. Ravindar, was examined as P.W.3. Documents Exs. A1 to A7were marked. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before theTribunal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. However, nodocument was filed on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 4. The Tribunal, based on the facts and circumstances ofthe case and the oral and documentary evidence on record, held thatthe drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent and equallyresponsible for the accident. Accordingly, the negligence wasapportioned equally on the drivers of both the vehicles and 50% ofthe liability to compensate the claimant was fixed on the appellanttransport corporation.5. On this issue, the learned counsel for the appellantpleaded that since the F.I.R. clearly states that the driver of thevan was rash and negligent, the Tribunal erred in holding that thenegligence was also on the part of the driver of the bus in which,the claimants travelled. 6. This contention cannot be accepted. Appellant is notable to establish before the Tribunal that the statements of theclaimants were erroneous and contrary to facts and that there areother materials viz., motor vehicles inspection report, mahazar orsketch, to prove that the negligence was entirely on the part of thevan driver. The Tribunal has considered the evidence on record oraland documentary and come to the conclusion that the drivers of boththe vehicles were negligent. Such finding cannot be brushed aside ona mere statement in the First Information Report. Since no materialhas been placed by the appellant in support of this plea, in anadmitted case of collision between two vehicles, the findings of theTribunal cannot be found fault with. Hence, the finding of theTribunal on negligence and the apportionment of the liability standsconfirmed. The next question will be on the quantum of compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. In CMA No. 605 of 2009 which is the subject matter ofMCOP No. 184 of 2005:-The injured claimant Elumalai suffered fracture of the nasalbone and was treated at Villupuram Government Hospital. He hasstated that he was an agricultural coolie and earning a sum ofRs.3,000/- p.m. The accident, in this case happened on 8.5.2000.The disability has been assessed at 20% under Ex.A6 but it wasreduced to 15% by the Tribunal. Based on the evidence of the Doctor,the wound certificate, the disability certificate and other factors,the Tribunal awarded the following amount as compensation withinterest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Disability Rs.30,000/-2Pain and sufferingRs. 15,000/-3Transport expenses, extra nourishment,damage to cloths and articles andmedical expensesRs. 5,000/-TotalRs. 50,000/- 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellantthat the sum of Rs.30,000/- for the disability assessed at 20% butreduced to 15% is excessive and therefore, the compensation has tobe reduced. 9. This Court is not inclined to accept such a plea for thefollowing reason. The accident happened on 8.5.2000. The accident is not indispute. The injured claimant was 28 years old agricultural coolieat that point of time. The disability has been assessed by theDoctor at 20% for which, the injured claimant will be entitled to asum of atleast Rs.20,000/- and the excess amount of Rs.10,000/- canbe adjusted towards loss of income during the period of treatment,attender charges and also towards transport expenses, medicalexpenses, extra nourishment and damage to cloths and articles forwhich meager amount is granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, theexcess amount if any can be adjusted on one or other heads and thetotal compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not require anyfurther reduction. 10. In CMA No. 606 of 2009 which is the subject matter ofMCOP No. 186 of 2005:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The injured claimant Muthulakshmi, 30 years old agriculturalcoolie, suffered right hand fracture in the same accident. Thedisability has been assessed at 40% but reduced by the Tribunal to30%. The Tribunal, considering the materials on record, granted thefollowing amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5%p.a.Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Disability Rs.60,000/-2Pain and sufferingRs. 20,000/-3Transport expenses, extra nourishment,damage to cloths and articles andmedical expensesRs. 10,000/-TotalRs. 90,000/-11. The injured claimant, Muthulakshmi, 30 years oldagricultural coolie suffered fracture of the right hand in the sameaccident. For the disability assessed at 40% which was reduced to30% by the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to a sum ofRs.40,000/- atleast. No good reason is given as to why thedisability is reduced. The excess amount of Rs.20,000/- can beadjusted towards loss of income during the period of treatment,attender charges and also towards transport expenses, extranourishment, medical expenses and damage to cloths and articles forwhich meager amount is granted. Therefore, the quantum ofcompensation granted by the Tribunal does not require any furtherreduction. 12. Further, after after lapse of eight years, theclaimants are yet to receive the compensation for the injuriessuffered by them in the accident. Hence, this Court is notinclined to prolong the agony of the claimants any further,particularly in view of their illiteracy and economic poverty asboth the claimants are agricultural coolies. This Court is unable tofind any good reason to reduce the quantum of compensation anyfurther. 13. The interest granted at 7.5% is justified and the sameis confirmed as the accident happened in the year 2000 and the awardwas passed in the year 2008.14. In the result, both the civil miscellaneous appeals aredismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are also dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time todeposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. On suchdeposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as perthe order of the Tribunal. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. raToThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Judge), Villupuram.+ 2 CC To Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate SR NO.8048 & 8049 CMA Nos.605 & 606/2009CK {CO}TP/25.3.09