Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division-III) Limited, Udhagamandalam v. Theresa Camilla & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.3.2009CoramTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKARCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.629 of 2009and M.P.No.1 of 2009 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division-III) Limited, Udhagamandalam, represented by its Managing Director ...Appellant/Respondent vs.1.Theresa Camilla,2.M.Cruz.(Respondent No.2 is given up). ...Respondents/Petitioner and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 28.6.2007passed in M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2006 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal(District Judge), Udhagamandalam. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 28.6.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2006on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge),Udhagamandalam. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are asfollows:- The accident in this case happened on 25.5.2006. Theinjured claimant Theresa Camilla, aged 37 years, Head Mistress inM/s.St.Micael's Primary School, The Nilgiris, was travelling alongwith her husband in the bus belonging to the appellant transportcorporation. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of thebus, the bus hit a parked car. In that accident, the said TheresaCamilla suffered grievous injury on the right side chest withfracture and fell unconscious in the bus. She was given first aid atCordite Factory Hospital at Aruvankadu and then shifted to Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hospital, Coonoor by ambulance and again she was shifted to VijayarajHospital, Ootacamund. Thereafter she was shifted to Ganga Hospital,Coimbatore by an ambulance. She was treated as inpatient in GangaHospital, Coimbatore from 26.5.2006 to 3.6.2006. She filed a claimfor compensation in a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- for the injury suffered inthe accident.3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examinedas P.W.1. One Mavubjohn, the present Head Mistress was examined asP.W.2 to prove that the injured claimant due to the injury hasresigned the post of Headmistress of that school. Dr.Hari VenkatRamani was examined as P.W.3. Exs.A-1 to A-17 were marked, thedetails of which are as follows:-Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of FIR dated 25.5.2006, Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 25.5.2006,Ex.A-3 is the photocopy of certificate of registration dated 3.8.1998,Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of the accident register dated 25.5.2006, Ex.A-5 is the photocopy of driving licence,Ex.A-6 is the photocopy of read worthiness certificate dated 21.7.2006Ex.A-7 is the copy of permit dated 28.9.2006, Ex.A-8 is the scan report dated 13.6.2006, Ex.A-9 is the wound certificate dated 8.6.2006,Ex.A-10 is the discharge summary,Ex.A-11 series are the medical bills,Ex.A-12 is the bus ticket,Ex.A-13 is the admission slip,Exs.A-14 and A-15 are the photocopy of proceeding of the District Primary Education Officer Coonoor and Exs.A-16 and A-17 are the pay certificates.On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the secondrespondent before the Tribunal, Mr.Cruz, the driver of the appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document wasmarked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation.4. The Tribunal discussed the negligence and fixed it on thepart of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus basedon Ex.A-1 and related documents. There is no material to controvertthe same. The evidence of R.W.1 did not appeal to the Tribunal onmerits. Therefore, the finding of negligence on the part of thedriver of the appellant transport corporation bus, as responsible forthe accident and the injury and the liability fixed on the appellanttransport corporation, cannot be and is not seriously disputed by thecounsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same is confirmed. 5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunalbased on the oral and documentary evidence of the injured claimantand that of the doctor supported by medical records, the period ofhospitalisation, granted the following amount as compensation withinterest at 7.5% per annum:- Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Extra nourishment expenses Rs. 5,000/-2Mental agony, shock, pain and sufferingRs.40,000/-3Medical expenses Rs.23,000/-4Transport expenses Rs. 4,000/-TotalRs.72,000/- 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleadedthat the sum of Rs.40,000/- granted towards mental agony, shock, painand suffering is not sustainable. Therefore, the quantum ofcompensation has to be reduced.7. On going through the award of the Tribunal, this Court isnot inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation on theabove said contention for the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened on 25.5.2006. The injuredclaimant was 48 years old at the time of accident. She was aHeadmistress in M/s.St.Michael's Primary School, The Nilgiris.She was getting a salary of Rs.15,045/- as per pay certificateEx.A-17.(ii) It is stated that the claimant was given first aid at CorditeFactory Hospital at Aruvankadu and then shifted to GovernmentHospital, Coonoor by ambulance and again she was shifted toVijayaraj Hospital, Ootacamund. Thereafter she was shifted toGanga Hospital, Coimbatore by an ambulance. She was treated as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inpatient in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore from 26.5.2006 to3.6.2006. Claimant states that some bills were misplaced. Shefiled only available bills. The treatment given to the claimantis not disputed by the appellant. The claimant suffered grievousinjury on the right side chest with fracture. P.W.2, thepresent Headmistress of M/s.St.Micael's Primary School, TheNilgiris, where the injured claimant worked, stated that becauseof the injury, the injured claimant resigned her job. Noamount was granted towards loss of income during the period oftreatment and convalescence. The compensation granted towardstransport and extra nourishment expenses for the above statedinjury and treatment are very meagre. No amount has been grantedtowards attender charges. Hence, the sum of Rs.40,000/- grantedtowards mental agony, shock, pain and suffering, which ismarginally higher, can be adjusted on the other heads.(iii) The sum of Rs.23,000/- granted towards medical expenses is interms of medical bills Ex.A11 series, which cannot be disputedand the same is confirmed.(iv) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensationgranted in a sum of Rs.72,000/- is reasonable and does notrequire any further reduction as also the interest granted at7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2006 andthe award is of the year 2007. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isdismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeksfor eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted andon such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartsTo The District Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Udhagamandalam. + 1 c.c. to Mr. V. Ramesh, Advocate. S.R.No.8539.Judgment in C.M.A.No.629 of 2009SGL (CO)GSK 13.04.2009.