Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Div.I) Ltd v. Elavarasan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.02.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S.KARNANC.M.A.No.1583 of 2001Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Div.I) Ltd.,rep.by its Managing Directorformerly known as Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, Villupuram.. Appellant/Respondent(C.T.accepted vide as per Order of Court dated 29.10.2001, in C.M.P.No.16011/2001)VsElavarasan .. Respondent/Petitioner Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,against the Award and Decree, dated 24.11.2000, made inM.C.O.P.No.669 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Principal Sub Court, Villupuram.For appellant : Mr.G.MuniratnamFor respondents : No appearanceJ U D G M E N TThe above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by theappellant/respondent, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,against the Award and Decree, dated 24.11.2000, made inM.C.O.P.No.669 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Principal Sub Court, Villupuram, awarding a compensationof Rs.18,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annumfrom the date of filing the petition till the date of payment ofcompensation.2.Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, theappellant/respondent, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decreepassed by the Tribunal.3.The short facts of the case are as follows:On 08.05.1995, the claimant/respondent was standing at theAdukkam bus stop at about 7.20 p.m. when the appellant/Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State Transport Corporation Bus came from Thiruvannamalai towardsVillupuram and stopped at the Adukkam bus stop. At the time theclaimant had attempted to board the bus, when suddenly the busstarted, the claimant fell down. The front wheel of the bus ranover his right hand fingers and sustained injuries and all thefingers about four inches shortened due to the accident. Forpreliminary treatment, he was rushed to the Kandachipuram Hospital,subsequently, to Villupuram Hospital and thereafter to JipmerHospital at Pondicherry. In all the three hospitals he receivedtreatment. At the time of accident, the claimant was an ElectronicMechanic in T.V., Radio etc., After the said accident, he is unableto do his job due to the loss of his fingers and hence unable toperform his job as normal. Therefore, the claimant claimed thecompensation of Rs.1,75,000/-.4.The respondent in his Counter has resisted the claim statingthat the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus was not involvedin the said accident. As such, the claim petition is notmaintainable. Further, the appellant denied that the driver of thebus had not driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner at highspeed. The claim amount is an excessive, no document proof of theincome and age of the claimant. Hence, the appellant/respondentprayed to dismiss the claim petition.5.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for theconsideration namely:(i)Did the accident happen due to the rashand negligent driving of the respondent's bus? (ii)What is the quantum of compensation, theclaimant is entitled for?6.On the petitioner's side, the petitioner was examined as PW1and Dr.Shanmugasundaram was examined as PW2. The claimant filedeight documents as Exs.P1 to P8 namely Ex.P1, the FIR; Ex.P2, theMotor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex.P3, the Charge Sheet; Ex.P4,the Wound Certificate of the claimant; Ex.P5, the Certificate issuedby Industrial and Commerce Department; Ex.P6, the Medical Bills (29serials); Ex.P7, the Disability Certificate of the claimant andEx.P8, the X'ray. On the side of the respondent no witnesses wereexamined and no documents were marked.7.The petitioner was examined as PW1 and he adhered evidencestating that the accident happened due to the rash and negligentdriving of the respondent's bus. Supporting to his evidence Ex.P1,the FIR; Ex.P2, the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report and Ex.P3, theCharge Sheet. The said Exs.P1 and P3 registered against the driverof the respondent's bus. The petitioner further stated thatimmediately after the accident, he was admitted in the hospital.After about ten days he was discharged from the hospital and gavecomplaint to the Investigating Officer. On the side of therespondent, no one was appeared and no oral and documentary evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was produced. On the basis of the petitioner's evidence and Ex.P3,the FIR, which was registered against the driver of the respondent'sbus. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion stating that the saidaccident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of thedriver of the respondent' bus. As such, the negligence is fixed onthe part of the respondent and the Issue No.1 was answered in favourof the petitioner.8.The petitioner further stated in his evidence that he hadsustained three grievous injuries. Supporting this point, thepetitioner marked Ex.P4, the Wound Certificate issued by the JipmerHospital, Pondicherry. One Dr.Shanmugasundaram had adhered evidencebefore the Tribunal and he cited that the petitioner's right middlefinger and that the ring finger sustained fracture and part of thebone. As such, the petitioner sustained 40% disability. Further,he has marked the Ex.P7, the Disability Certificate and Ex.P5, theX'ray.9.On the basis of the petitioner's evidence and Doctor'sevidence regarding mode of the accident and the nature of injuries,the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.18,000/- together withinterest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing thepetition till the date of payment of compensation. Further, theTribunal ordered that after the deposit of the compensation amount,the petitioner is permitted to withdraw 50% of the compensationamount and the balance 50% amount to be deposited in a nationalisedbank for a period of three years. The Tribunal fixed a sum ofRs.1,000/- as Advocate fees.10.Challenging the Award and Decree, dated 24.11.2000, inM.C.O.P.No.669 of 1995, passed by the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Principal Sub Court, Villupuram, the above CivilMiscellaneous Appeal has been filed the appellant/Tamil Nadu StateTransport Corporation Ltd.,11.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued thatthe Corporation bus was not involved in the said accident. Thepetitioner's evidence is of interest evidence. No police officerwas examined to determine the negligence of the driver. TheTribunal erroneously has come to the conclusion that negligence ison the part of the respondent bus. The Tribunal, on the basis ofthe petitioner's evidence and without material evidence regardinginjuries, treatment, medical expenses, disability, occupation andincome, the Tribunal, which awarded the compensation is erroneous.The PW2, Dr.Shanmugasundaram, who had not related to the claimant.As such, the Doctor's evidence is to be rejected. So, the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant prays to set aside the award.12.After considering the facts and circumstances of the caseand arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for theappellant, this Court is of the view on considering the nature ofthe injuries, Wound Certificate and the Disability Certificate, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quantum of compensation ie. a sum of Rs.18,000/- together withinterest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing thepetition till the date of payment awarded in M.C.O.P.No.669 of 1995,dated 24.11.2000, is fair and equitable. As such, this Courtconfirms the same.13.This Court imposed a condition on the appellant on24.11.2000, to deposit the entire compensation amount, into thecredit of the M.C.O.P.No.669 of 1995, on the file of the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Villupuram. As theaccident happened in the year 1995, it is open to therespondent/claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount withaccrued interest and cost, lying in the credit of the Award andDecree, dated 24.11.2000, made in M.C.O.P.No.669 of 1995, on thefile of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court,Villupuram, after filing necessary payment out application inaccordance with the law, subject to withdrawal, if any. 14.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissedand the Award and Decree, dated 24.11.2000, made in M.C.O.P.No.669of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Principal Sub Court, Villupuram, is confirmed. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.krkSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Villupuram.2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr. G. Muniratnam, Advocate SR No.6211RSM(CO)SR/19.2.2010 Order in C.M.A.No.1583 of 2001