(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2012, made in M.C.O.P. No.255 of 2011, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.)The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing”.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2012, made in M.C.O.P. No.255 of 2011, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore2. The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P. No.255 of 2011, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore The respondent herein has filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident that took place on 04.01.2011.3. Breif facts leading to the case is that on 04.01.2011 when the claimant was proceedings in his motor cycle bearing Reg.No. TN 31 AX 7122 at about 7.30 AM near Western side of railway junction, Vridhachalam, the respondent corporation bus bearing Reg.No. TN 30 N 0951 came from the opposite direction at a very high speed in a rash and negligent mannter, without making horn, without following the traffic rules and regulations hit against the claimant’s motor cycle and caused the accident. The accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of respondent’s vehicle. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained grevious injuries and multiple fracture on his body. Hence, for the loss and injuries sustained by him due to the said accident, he claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation under various heads before the tribunal.4. The appellant-Transport Corporation, filed counter statement before the tribunal and denied the mode of accident and negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus. The claimant’s age, occupation, monthly income, nature of injuries and the treatment taken by the claimants were denied by the Transport Corporation. The amount of compensation claimed by the claimant was also denied as excessive and speculative.5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor was examined as PW2 and marked documents ExP1 to P5. The appellant/Transport Corporation examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and no documents were marked.6. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence has concluded that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus bearing Reg.No.TN.30 N 0951 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,71,780/- under various heads together with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by the Transport Corporation.7. Challenging the liability fastened on them by the award dated 27.03.2012, made in M.C.O.P. No.255 of 2011, the appellant - Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal.8. The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation submitted that that the tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of PW1 who’s evidence not corroborated by another other independent witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that the tribunal ought not to have held that mere registering FIR against the driver of the bus is enough for holding negligence on him. The Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RW1/driver of the bus, who deposed that the accident was occurred due to sudden turning of motor cyclist bearing Reg.No.31-AX-7122 without observing the traffic rules.9. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the percentage of permanent disability fixed by the tribunal at 11% is on the higher side. Likewise the notional income fixed by the tribunal at Rs.4500/- per month and the compensation awarded under various head is also excessive and without any proof. Hence the award passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside.10. The arguments raised by the claimant/respondent herein before the tribunal is that the father of the claimant had lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police station and FIR was also registered against the driver of the bus in Crime No.07/2011 under Section 279 and 337 of IPC. Ex.P2/MVI Report also shows that the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. Therefore the accident had occurred only to due to negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus.11. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation. No Appearance on behalf of the respodent /claimant and perused the materials available on record.12. On a perusal of records, it is seen that though RW1/driver of the bus has denied the negligence on his part, during cross examination he had categorically admitted that due to his negligence the said accident had occurred and a criminal case was also registered against him. The relevant portion is extracted below;“TAMIL”13. As per the cross examination of RW1, it is clear that against RW1, FIR was lodged. Furthermore, if there is no mistake on the part of the respondent’s driver, he could have preferred a complaint before the jurisdictional police station, but he did not to do so. Therefore the arguments raised by the learned counsel denying the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus cannot be accepted.14. With regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing the appellant in respect of fixing percentage of disability and the quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal, it is seen that PW2/Doctor has stated that the claimant has developed the disability i.e fracture of left knee and surgery was conducted, plate and screws were fixed to the claimant and opined that the disability is permanent and it is 40%. The tribunal took the disability at 33% and as per ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had calculated the disability to the whole body which comes 1/3 and accordingly fixed the disability as 11% and calculated the compensation. The said disability fixed by the tribunal is reasonable and does not require any modification.15. The tribunal by considering the age of the deceased 28 years as per Ex.P3/Discharge summary, fixed a sum of Rs,4500/- as notional income and by applying proper multiplier 17, calculated the loss of income at Rs.1,00,980/-, which is proper and reasonable. Further, as per Ex. P4-Medical Bills to the tune of Rs.38,308/- the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.38,300/- by taking into consideration the treatment taken by the claimant for the injuries sustained by him. The Transport Corporation did not raise any objections for the said amount, therefore, this Court find no reason to interfere with the said amount. Accordingly, the sum awarded under the heads Pain and Suffering, Extra Nourishment, Transportation are also reasonable and does not require a
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ny modification by this Court.16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,71,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is confirmed. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.255 of 2011. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.