(Prayer: in C.M.A(MD)No.1093 of 2007: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.275 of 2004, dated 31.10.2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Ist Additional Sub-Judge), Tirunelveli.C.M.A(MD)No.666 of 2014: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.275 of 2004, dated 31.10.2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Ist Additional Sub-Court), Tirunelveli.)Common Judgment:1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Ist Additional Sub-Court), Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.275 of 2004.The appeal in C.M.A(MD)No.1073 of 2007 is filed by the claimant, while, the appeal in C.M.A(MD)No.666 of 2014 is filed by the Transport Corporation. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. It is the case of the claimant that on 22.02.2004 she travelled as a passenger in the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation bearing Registration No. TN 32 N 1239 from Valliyoor to Tirunelveli and when the bus was proceeding near Nanguneri by by-.pass road, it hit against the tourist van bearing Registration No.WUV 41 7285 and in that accident, she suffered grievious injuries and fracture. In this regard, a criminal case was also registered by the Nanguneri Police in Crime No.64 of 2004.3. The claim petition was resisted by the Transport Corporation mainly contending that the driver of the tourist van was responsible for the accident and hence, they are not liable to pay compensation, besides disputing the other averments regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, her avocation and the quantum sought for in the claim petition.4. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 were marked. On the side of the transport Corporation, one Thirumurugan was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 was marked. Upon considering both the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the transport Corporation was responsible for the accident and awarded a total compensation of Rs.27,703/- to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Assailing the said order, these appeals are before this Court as stated supra.5. Mr.T.Selvakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the claimant would argue that the claimant was a lady, aged about 56 years old at the time of accident. Even though she was able to produce evidence to show that she suffers 30% disability, but the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation and she prays for enhancement of compensation.6. Per contra, Mr.M.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation would vehemently oppose the prayer of the claimant, contending that the finding on negligence is contrary to the view taken by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.81 of 2004, in which, both the drivers were found equally responsible for the accident. It is further contended that P.W.1-injured claimant herself has given evidence against the driver of the tourist van, but the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company has not been made as parties in the claim petition. It is also contended that the award is excessive and it has to be reduced.7. Perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, would reveal that in the cross examination, she categorically stated that the tourist bus proceeded slowly, but FIR was registered against its driver. However, after investigation, final report was laid against the driver of the Transport Corporation. After perusing the charge sheet-Ex.P2, Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector-Ex.P3 and the Observation Mahazar-Ex.P5 and the oral evidence of P.W.1, it has been held that the driver of the bus caused the accident. Therefore, this Court is not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation.8. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.500/- towards transport expenses and a sum of Rs.2500 for extra nourishment and another sum of Rs.7203/- towards medical expenses, which in the considered opinion of this Court seems to be reasonable and fair and the amount awarded under the above heads stand confirmed. Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- towards simple injury and Rs.10,000/- for the grievous injury. This Court, on consideration of the evidence of P.w.2/Dr.Ramaguru and Ex.P16-X-ray, Ex.P17-Wound Certificate, thought it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the disability suffered by her. Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2500/- towards pain and suffering, which is enhanced to Rs.5000/-. The total amount comes to Rs.45,203/-, which is rounded off to Rs.45,000/-.The interest at the rate of 9% p.a., awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to 7.5% p.a.9. Accordingly, the appeal in C.M.A(MD)No.666 of 2014 filed by the Transport Corporation is dismiss
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ed and the appeal in C.M.A(MD)No.1093 of 2007 filed by the claimant is partly allowed, as indicated above. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with accrued interest and costs,by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs.