CMA/4102/2008 of THE MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs A.GOPAL on 23 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,Division-II,RangapuramVellore. .. Appellant/Respondent Vs.A.Gopal .. Respondent/Petitioner . . .

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against theaward and decree dated 15.11.2007 made in M.C.O.P No.488 of 2002 onthe file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court) Cheyyar,Tiruvannamalai District.

For Appellant : Mrs.VijayalakshmiFor respondent : ....

The State Transport Corporation has filed this appealchallenging the award dated 15.11.2007 made in M.C.O.P No.488 of2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court)Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.

2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this casehappened on 28.04.2002. The injured claimant Gopal, aged 42 years, amilk vendor cum agricultrual labourer along with his friends wastravelling on a TVS Suzuki when he was hit by the Appellant Transport

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner.He suffered fracture of right leg knee and lacerated injuries on hisright thigh and he was taken to Cheyyar Government Hospital.Thereafter he took treatment in the Government General Hospital atChennai. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-stating that his income was Rs.3,000/- per month.

3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant wasexamined as P.W.1 and documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10.Ex.P.1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is thecopy of the Accident Register. Ex.P.3 is the discharge summary.Ex.p.4 is the out patient chit. Ex.P.5 is the bill for payment forphysiotherapy. Ex.p.6 is the medical bills. Ex.P.7 is the X ray.Ex.P.8 is the bill for taking X.ray. Ex.P.9 is the bill for sendingthe milk to Kancheepuram Hutson Company. Ex.P.10 is the disabilityCertificate. The driver of the appellant Transport Corporation buswas examined as R.W.1. But, no documentary evidence was let in onbehalf of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal.

4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver ofthe appellant Transport Corporation Bus, who was responsible for theaccident and the injury caused to the claimant and the liabilityfixed on the appellant to compensate the claimant, is not seriouslydisputed. Accordingly, the said finding is confirmed.

5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for theappellant is on the quantum of compensation. The issue relating tothe compensation was decided in answer to point No.2. by theTribunal. The income of the injured claimant an agricultural labourcum mason was taken as Rs.150/- per day by the Tribunal. Ex.P.2 isthe copy of the Accident register showing the nature of injuries tothe right thigh and fracture of right knee and other injuries allover the body. It is stated that the injured claimant was in theChennai Government General hospital for 3 days. The Doctor, who wasexamined as P.W.2, on the basis of medical records and X ray, statedthat there was fracture of the right knee, and in Ex.P.10,Disability Certificate, he opined that the disability is 20%.Considering all these factors, the age, income and occupation of theinjured claimant, the Tribunal granted the following amounts ascompensation with 7.5% interest.

miscellaneous petition is closed.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time todeposit the entire amount and is granted. On such deposit, theclaimant is permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of theTribunal.

Sd/Asst.Registrar

/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarPALToThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Subordinate Judge,Cheyyar.1 CC To Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR NO.72527 CMA No. 4102 of 2008bv(co)pmk/11.2.2009.