Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Angammal on 11 July, 2016
Author: T.Mathivanan
Bench: T.Mathivanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 11.07.2016
Coram
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN
C.M.A.NO:3146 OF 2005
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd
Villupuram. : Appellant/Respondent
Vs
Angammal
Thottiyum Village & Post
Kallakurichi Taluk
Villupuram District : Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer : This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, as against the award dt:23.8.2004 and made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No:34/2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (FTC), Kallakurichi.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Babu & S.V.Vasanthakumar
For Respondent : Mr. A.G.Rajan
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dt:23.08.2004 and made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.34/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi.
2. The respondent/claimant had moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kallakurichi with a claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P 219/2002 claiming a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident, said to have been taken place on 28.5.2001 at 11.30 a.m. near Bangaram Bus stop, Salem Main Road, while she was getting down from a passenger bus bearing registration No:TN-32-N-0622 belonging to the appellant Transport corporation.
3. According to the claimant, when she was getting down from the bus, the driver who was on the steering wheel had moved the same in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the respondent to fall from the bus and as a result of which she had sustained multiple injuries.
4. The appellant Corporation being the respondent in the claim petition had contended that the claimant is not a bonafide passenger. The appellant had further contended that on 28.5.2001, when the bus bearing registration No.TN-32-N-0622 was stopped at Bangaram bus stop, the claimant who was aged about 50 years had skidded on the foot step and fallen down , therefore no rashness and negligence could be attributed to the driver of the bus.
5. The respondent/claimant was examined as PW-1 one Dr.Viswanathan was examined as PW-2, during the course of their examination Exs P1 to P8 were marked. On the other hand, the driver had examined himself as RW1. However no documentary evidence was adduced. On appreciation of the evidences both oral and documentary the claims Tribunal had proceeded to pass an award of Rs.1,26,000/- directing the appellant Transport Corporation to pay this amount to the claimant within a period of 8 weeks from the date of claim petition with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
6. As already observed in the opening paragraph of this judgment, the appeal has been preferred on 2 grounds.
a) Negligence
b) Quantum
(i) Negligence : This court has carefully perused the materials available on record. In the claim petition the claimant has stated that she was aged about 41 years at the time of occurrence. As it is revealed from her evidence, when the bus came to a halt, she was trying to get down along with two bags. Without noticing this fact the driver had moved the bus suddenly. Owing to this reason she had lost her balance and fallen down, which resulted in injuries on her body. This court has perused Ex.P1 F.I.R, and other documents viz Ex.P2 to P6. On examining these evidences this court finds that it would be sufficient to substantiate the case of claimant that the driver alone was the wrong doer. RW1 is the driver of the bus. It is to be seen that the driver ought to have taken care of the passengers so as to reach their destination. It is his responsibility to see that every passenger of his bus perform journey safely.
On coming to the instant case at on the hand, it is established that the claimant being a lady, while alighting from the bus, had lost her balance, when the driver had moved the bus suddenly without noticing the claimant being getting down. Hence the Tribunal had correctly found that the driver was the Tort Feasor.
(ii) Quantum : The claimant had claimed that she was a vegetable vendor. According to her she would earn at least Rs.60/- per day. This was taken into consideration by the Tribunal. PW2 Dr.Viswanathan had examined the claimant clinically, and assessed her disability at 35%. However the Tribunal had reduced the percentage of disability to an extent of 25%. As per the second schedule to Section 163A of MVACT 1988, the Tribunal had selected 15 as the multiplier. Based on her daily income of Rs,60/- the loss of earning capacity to the extent 25% was calculated at Rs.81,000/-. Besides this, the Tribunal had also awarded compensation on the following heads :
(i) For Trochanter (bony protuberances by which muscles are attached to the upper part of the thigh bone) Rs.20,000/-
(ii) Towards shortening of left leg by 4 Rs.10,000/- (iii) For medical expenses Rs.5,000/- (iv) For pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/-
7. Totally the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- directing the appellant Transport Corporation to pay this amount with interest at 9% to the claimant within a period of 8 weeks from the date of award.
8. This court on considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment finds that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence no interference of this court is required as there is no infirmity or illegality.
9.In the result the appeal is dismissed. The award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount along with the accrued interest and cost to the credit of the claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P 34/2004 on the file of the Tribunal within 4 weeks.
10. On such deposit being made the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest and cost without actually filing any formal application seeking permission. However there shall be no order as to cost.
11.07.2016
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
T.MATHIVANAN,J
C.R.P.NO:3146 OF 2005
11.07.2016