Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Vs. 1.A.Kamalam - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated:15. 04/2013 coram the honourable mr.justice c.s.karnan c.m.a(md)no.1266 of 2010 & m.p.(md)no.2 of 2010 tamil nadu state transport corporation limited, division-iv, represented through its managing director, pillai thaneer panthal, thirumayam road, pudukkottai. ... appellant vs 1.a.kamalam 2.k.subramanian 3.united india insurance company limited, gobichettipalayam ”452. ... respondents prayer civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, to set-aside the judgment and decree passed in m.c.o.p.no.1863 of 2003, dated 20.04.2009, on the file of the learned motor accidents claims tribunal, iii additional sub court, trichy. !for appellant .. mr.s.royace emmanuvel ^for respondents .. mr.n.sudhagar nagaraj for r-1 mr.g.prabhu rajadurai for r-3 :judgment the petitioner / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in m.c.o.p.no.1863 of 2003, on the file of the learned motor accidents claims tribunal, iii additional sub court, trichy.2. the short facts of the case are as follows:- the petitioner, a.kamalam, has filed the claim in m.c.o.p.no.1863 of 2003, claiming compensation of a sum of rs.1,20,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. it was submitted that on 04.02.2003, when the petitioner was travelling as a passenger in the tnstc bus bearing registration not tn-45-n-1074 which was proceeding from pattukkottai to karaikudi, and when the bus was nearing panangulam pillaiyar kovil, at about 12 noon, the first respondent's lorry bearing registration not tn-33-z-3333, coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the tnstc bus and caused the accident. as a result, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries including fracture of bone in chest, forehead and both her hands and chin. she was admitted at aranthangi government hospital, on 04.02.2003 and was discharged after getting first aid. due to the injuries sustained by her, she cannot use her hand and is also not able to breath normally. at the time of accident, she was aged 52 years and was working as a coolie and earning rs.2,500/- per month. hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the first, second and third respondents. the first and second respondents are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration not tn-33-z-3333 and the third respondent is the managing director of tamil nadu state transport corporation bus bearing registration not tn-45-n-1074.3. the second respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner should prove her age, income and occupation through documentary evidence. it was submitted that the first respondent's lorry driver did not have a valid licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. it was submitted that the driver of the lorry drove the lorry in a careful and cautious manner and that the accident was caused only due to negligence of the bus driver, who had driven the bus at a high speed and moved the bus to the right side of the road and dashed against the lorry. the averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment and disability was also not admitted. it was submitted that the claim was excessive.4. the third respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner has to prove her age, income and occupation through documentary evidence. it was submitted that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the first respondent's lorry driver. it was submitted that on the date of accident, when the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a careful and cautious manner, the driver of the first respondent's lorry drove the lorry at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and moved the lorry to the middle of the road. on seeing this, the third respondent's bus driver had slowed down the bus and moved the bus to the extreme left of the road and in spite of this, the lorry had dashed against the front right side of the bus and caused the accident. it was submitted that the f.i.r. had been registered as against the driver of the first respondent's lorry. it was submitted that the claim was excessive.5. in the same accident, other claims have been filed by the injured passengers of the bus. on the request made by the counsels for their respective petitioners in the various claims, through a joint memo, a joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded in m.c.o.p.no.1860 of 2003 and common judgment was passed.6. the motor accidents claims tribunal had frames two issues for consideration in the case, viz., "(i) due to whose negligence was the accident caused? (ii) is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? if so, what is the quantum? 7. the petitioners in m.c.o.p.nos.1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 1888, 1889 and 2037 viz., chandra, saraswathi, rajam, kamalam, ramu, mira, idayathulla, narayanan, vijayan, gnanamuthu, utthaman, paneerselvam, bhavani, sivakozhunthu and mallika were examined as p.w.1, p.w.2, p.w.3, p.w.4, p.w.7, p.w.8, p.w.5, p.w.6, p.w.10, p.w.9, p.w.11, p.w.12, p.w.13, p.w.14 and p.w.15 respectively and one dr.saravanan was examined as p.w.16, dr.rajesh was examined as p.w.17, dr.rajendran was examined as p.w.18 and dr.m.k.muralidharan was examined as p.w.19 and thirty five documents were marked as exs.p1 to p35, viz., ex.p1-copy of f.i.r. dated 04.02.2003, ex.p2-copy of extract of accident register pertaining to chandira, ex.p3-wound certificate of saraswathi dated 05.02.2003, ex.p4-wound certificate of rajam dated 05.02.2003, ex.p5-wound certificate of kamalam dated 05.02.2003, ex.p6-o.p.chit pertaining to idayathullah, ex.p7-copy of extract of accident register pertaining to idayathullah, ex.p8-wound certificate of narayanan dated 05.02.2003, ex.p9-copy of extract of accident register pertaining to ramu, ex.p10-o.p.chit issued to meera, ex.p11-copy of extract of accident register pertaining to gnanamuthu, ex.p12-wound certificate of vijayan, ex.p13-wound certificate of utthaman dated 05.02.2003, ex.p14- o.p.chit issued to paneerselvam, ex.p15-copy of extract of accident register pertaining to panneerselvam, ex.p16-wound certificate of bhavani dated 05.02.2003, ex.p17-wound certificate of sivakozhunthu dated 05.02.2003, ex.p18- wound certificate of mallika, ex.p19-disability certificate issued to saraswathi dated 11.12.2006, ex.p20-disability certificate issued to bhavani dated 11.12.2006, ex.p21-disability certificate of rajan, ex.p22-x-rays pertinent to rajam, ex.p23-disability certificate of sivakozhunthu, ex.p24-x-ray pertinent to sivakozhunthu, ex.p25-disability certificate issued to kamalam dated 25.08.2005, ex.p26-x-rays pertinent to kamalam, ex.p27-disability certificate of utthaman dated 23.09.2005, ex.p28-x-rays pertinent to utthaman, ex.p29-disability certificate of mallika dated 21.09.2006, ex.p30-x-rays of mallika, ex.p31- disability certificate of vijayan dated 21.09.2006, ex.p32-xrays pertinent to vijayan, ex.p33-disability certificate of saraswathi dated 01.04.2007, exs.p34 and p35-x-rays pertinent to saraswathi. on the respondents side, two witnesses were examined as r.w.1 and r.w.2 and four documents were marked as exs.r1 to r4, viz., ex.r1-cd file submitted by the head constable attached to keeramangalam police station, pudukkottai district, ex.r2-copy of petition in m.c.o.p.no.999 of 2003, ex.r3-copy of judgment made in m.c.o.p.no.999 of 2003, dated 23.06.2006, ex.r4-copy of judgment and decree passed in m.c.o.p.no.999 of 2003, dated 23.06.2006.8. p.w.1 had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident. she had further adduced evidence that the accident had been caused only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's lorry driver. the other petitioners in the various other claims had deposed evidence only regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him in the accident. it is seen on scrutiny of ex.p1, f.i.r. that the compliant regarding the accident had been lodged by the driver of the third respondent's bus.9. r.w.2, bhaskaran, the conductor of the third respondent's bus had adduced evidence that on the day of accident, he was standing near the driver of the bus after issuing tickets to the passengers and that he had seen the first respondent's lorry, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had come on to the middle of the road. r.w.2 deposed that on seeing this, the bus driver had applied barakes and slow down the speed of the bus and had taken the bus to the extreme left i.e, mud road and stopped the bus. but in spite of this, the lorry driver had dashed the lorry against the front right portion of the bus and caused the accident. he deposed that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's lorry driver. he further deposed that the claim has been made by the third respondent / tnstc before the fast track court, pudukkottai, claiming compensation from the first and second respondents for damage caused to the bus as per ex.r2 and that after enquiry, the court had ordered the first and second respondents to pay damages of rs.11,577/- to the third respondent as per ex.r3.10. it was contended on the side of the second respondent that as the names of the petitioners p.w.8 and p.w.13 in m.c.o.p.no.1865 of 2003 and m.c.o.p.no.1888 of 2003, were not mentioned in the f.i.r. marked as ex.p1, the claims filed by these petitioners have to be dismissed. however, the tribunal on opining that the driver of the bus might have inadvertently not mentioned the names of the said two passengers and in opining that this could not necessarily mean that they not sustained injuries in the said accident, rejected the contentions. the tribunal, on observing from the evidence of p.w.1 and r.w.1 that the accident had been caused by a head on collision as they observed that the conductor of the bus, r.w.2, who was standing near the driver of the bus had not sustained injuries, whereas p.w.1, who was seated in the middle of the bus had sustained injuries. though p.w.1 had adduced evidence that the accident had occurred on the east side of the road, no documents had been filed on the respondent's side to show the damages sustained by the vehicles. the tribunal further opined that mere granting of compensation for damages sustained by the bus could not be taken as indirect proof that the driver of the first respondent's lorry had been rash and negligent in his driving. hence the tribunal, on observing that the accident had taken near a curved road, opined that the accident could have been prevented if the driver of both the vehicles had driven their vehicles at a moderate speed. hence, the tribunal on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the first and third respondent's vehicles and hence held the first and second respondents liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed and the third respondent liable to pay 50% of the compensation to the petitioner.11. p.w.4, kamalam, the petitioner had adduced evidence that due to the accident, she had sustained fracture of bone in her leg and right shoulder and also sustained injuries in her chest and head. in support of her evidence, she had marked ex.p5, wound certificate. p.w.18, dr.rajendran had adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner and found that the fractured right clavicle bone had not joined in a proper manner and due to this, the movements have become restricted. he deposed that the petitioner had sustained 34% disability in the said accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked ex.p25, disability certificate and ex.p26-x-rays. the tribunal on holding that the disability sustained by the petitioner is 30%, awarded a sum of rs.60,000/- as compensation under the head of disability; rs.5,000/- was awarded for medical expenses; rs.10,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering; rs.3,000/- for nutrition and rs.2,000/- for attender charges. in total, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs.80,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the first and second respondents to pay a sum of rs.40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation, with costs, within two months from the date of its order. the third respondent was directed to pay a sum of rs.40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation, within two months from the date of its order.12. aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the third respondent / tnstc limited, pudukottai has preferred the present appeal.13. the learned counsel for the appellant / tamil nadu state transport corporation limited, has contended in his appeal that the tribunal failed to see that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the lorry driver and that the f.i.r was lodged only against the lorry driver. it was contended that the tribunal ought not to have granted a sum of rs.80,000/- as the claimant had sustained only simple injuries. it was submitted that the award was excessive and hence, it was prayed to set-aside the award.14. the learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant is a coolie and she had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on her pelvic bone. the doctor had assessed the disability at 34%. besides, she has sustained injuries on her knee, head, chest and right hand. the learned counsel has further submitted that the tribunal had not granted compensation under the heads of 'transport and loss of earning during medical treatment period'. the learned counsel has further submitted that two heavy vehicles were involved in the accident and that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles.15. the learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that in order to prove the contributory negligence, the claimant had not produced rough sketch to determine the tyre mark for fastening the liability on the side of the driver of the lorry. the learned counsel has further submitted that the driver of the transport corporation bus was solely responsible for the said accident.16. on verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the tribunal, this court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding contributory negligence, liability and quantum of compensation.17. as per court records, it is seen that this court had imposed a condition on the appellant on 14.09.2010 to deposit the appellant's share amount of liability with interest. now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the deposited compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of m.c.o.p.no.1863 of 2003, on the file of the learned motor accidents claims tribunal, iii additional sub court, trichy, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order.18. in the result, the above appeal is dismissed. consequently, the award and decree passed in m.c.o.p.no.1863 of 2003, on the file of the learned motor accidents claims tribunal, iii additional sub court, trichy, dated 20.04.2009 is confirmed. there is no order as to costs. connected miscellaneous petition is closed. r n s to the iii additional sub court, motor accidents claims tribunal, trichy.

Judgment:
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

15. 04/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A(MD)No.1266 of 2010 & M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Division-IV, represented through its Managing Director, Pillai Thaneer Panthal, Thirumayam Road, Pudukkottai. ... Appellant Vs 1.A.Kamalam 2.K.Subramanian 3.United India Insurance Company Limited, Gobichettipalayam ”

452. ... Respondents PRAYER Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set-aside the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1863 of 2003, dated 20.04.2009, on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional Sub Court, Trichy. !For Appellant .. Mr.S.Royace Emmanuvel ^For Respondents .. Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj for R-1 Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R-3 :JUDGMENT The petitioner / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1863 of 2003, on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional Sub Court, Trichy.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner, A.Kamalam, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.1863 of 2003, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 04.02.2003, when the petitioner was travelling as a passenger in the TNSTC bus bearing registration not TN-45-N-1074 which was proceeding from Pattukkottai to Karaikudi, and when the bus was nearing Panangulam Pillaiyar Kovil, at about 12 noon, the first respondent's lorry bearing registration not TN-33-Z-3333, coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the TNSTC bus and caused the accident. As a result, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries including fracture of bone in chest, forehead and both her hands and chin. She was admitted at Aranthangi Government Hospital, on 04.02.2003 and was discharged after getting first aid. Due to the injuries sustained by her, she cannot use her hand and is also not able to breath normally. At the time of accident, she was aged 52 years and was working as a coolie and earning Rs.2,500/- per month. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the first, second and third respondents. The first and second respondents are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration not TN-33-Z-3333 and the third respondent is the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration not TN-45-N-1074.

3. The second respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner should prove her age, income and occupation through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the first respondent's lorry driver did not have a valid licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. It was submitted that the driver of the lorry drove the lorry in a careful and cautious manner and that the accident was caused only due to negligence of the bus driver, who had driven the bus at a high speed and moved the bus to the right side of the road and dashed against the lorry. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment and disability was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

4. The third respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner has to prove her age, income and occupation through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the first respondent's lorry driver. It was submitted that on the date of accident, when the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a careful and cautious manner, the driver of the first respondent's lorry drove the lorry at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and moved the lorry to the middle of the road. On seeing this, the third respondent's bus driver had slowed down the bus and moved the bus to the extreme left of the road and in spite of this, the lorry had dashed against the front right side of the bus and caused the accident. It was submitted that the F.I.R. had been registered as against the driver of the first respondent's lorry. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

5. In the same accident, other claims have been filed by the injured passengers of the bus. On the request made by the counsels for their respective petitioners in the various claims, through a joint memo, a joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded in M.C.O.P.No.1860 of 2003 and common judgment was passed.

6. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had frames two issues for consideration in the case, viz., "(i) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? (ii) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 7. The petitioners in M.C.O.P.Nos.1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 1888, 1889 and 2037 viz., Chandra, Saraswathi, Rajam, Kamalam, Ramu, Mira, Idayathulla, Narayanan, Vijayan, Gnanamuthu, Utthaman, Paneerselvam, Bhavani, Sivakozhunthu and Mallika were examined as P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.10, P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.14 and P.W.15 respectively and one Dr.Saravanan was examined as P.W.16, Dr.Rajesh was examined as P.W.17, Dr.Rajendran was examined as P.W.18 and Dr.M.K.Muralidharan was examined as P.W.19 and thirty five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P35, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R. dated 04.02.2003, Ex.P2-copy of extract of accident register pertaining to Chandira, Ex.P3-wound certificate of Saraswathi dated 05.02.2003, Ex.P4-wound certificate of Rajam dated 05.02.2003, Ex.P5-wound certificate of Kamalam dated 05.02.2003, Ex.P6-O.P.chit pertaining to Idayathullah, Ex.P7-copy of extract of accident register pertaining to Idayathullah, Ex.P8-wound certificate of Narayanan dated 05.02.2003, Ex.P9-copy of extract of accident register pertaining to Ramu, Ex.P10-O.P.Chit issued to Meera, Ex.P11-copy of extract of accident register pertaining to Gnanamuthu, Ex.P12-wound certificate of Vijayan, Ex.P13-wound certificate of Utthaman dated 05.02.2003, Ex.P14- O.P.chit issued to Paneerselvam, Ex.P15-copy of extract of accident register pertaining to Panneerselvam, Ex.P16-wound certificate of Bhavani dated 05.02.2003, Ex.P17-wound certificate of Sivakozhunthu dated 05.02.2003, Ex.P18- wound certificate of Mallika, Ex.P19-disability certificate issued to Saraswathi dated 11.12.2006, Ex.P20-disability certificate issued to Bhavani dated 11.12.2006, Ex.P21-disability certificate of Rajan, Ex.P22-X-rays pertinent to Rajam, Ex.P23-disability certificate of Sivakozhunthu, Ex.P24-X-ray pertinent to Sivakozhunthu, Ex.P25-disability certificate issued to Kamalam dated 25.08.2005, Ex.P26-X-rays pertinent to Kamalam, Ex.P27-disability certificate of Utthaman dated 23.09.2005, Ex.P28-X-rays pertinent to Utthaman, Ex.P29-disability certificate of Mallika dated 21.09.2006, Ex.P30-X-rays of Mallika, Ex.P31- disability certificate of Vijayan dated 21.09.2006, Ex.P32-Xrays pertinent to Vijayan, Ex.P33-disability certificate of Saraswathi dated 01.04.2007, Exs.P34 and P35-X-rays pertinent to Saraswathi. On the respondents side, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4, viz., Ex.R1-CD file submitted by the Head Constable attached to Keeramangalam Police Station, Pudukkottai District, Ex.R2-copy of petition in M.C.O.P.No.999 of 2003, Ex.R3-copy of judgment made in M.C.O.P.No.999 of 2003, dated 23.06.2006, Ex.R4-copy of judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.999 of 2003, dated 23.06.2006.

8. P.W.1 had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident. She had further adduced evidence that the accident had been caused only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's lorry driver. The other petitioners in the various other claims had deposed evidence only regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him in the accident. It is seen on scrutiny of Ex.P1, F.I.R. that the compliant regarding the accident had been lodged by the driver of the third respondent's bus.

9. R.W.2, Bhaskaran, the conductor of the third respondent's bus had adduced evidence that on the day of accident, he was standing near the driver of the bus after issuing tickets to the passengers and that he had seen the first respondent's lorry, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had come on to the middle of the road. R.W.2 deposed that on seeing this, the bus driver had applied barakes and slow down the speed of the bus and had taken the bus to the extreme left i.e, mud road and stopped the bus. But in spite of this, the lorry driver had dashed the lorry against the front right portion of the bus and caused the accident. He deposed that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's lorry driver. He further deposed that the claim has been made by the third respondent / TNSTC before the Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai, claiming compensation from the first and second respondents for damage caused to the bus as per Ex.R2 and that after enquiry, the Court had ordered the first and second respondents to pay damages of Rs.11,577/- to the third respondent as per Ex.R3.

10. It was contended on the side of the second respondent that as the names of the petitioners P.W.8 and P.W.13 in M.C.O.P.No.1865 of 2003 and M.C.O.P.No.1888 of 2003, were not mentioned in the F.I.R. marked as Ex.P1, the claims filed by these petitioners have to be dismissed. However, the Tribunal on opining that the driver of the bus might have inadvertently not mentioned the names of the said two passengers and in opining that this could not necessarily mean that they not sustained injuries in the said accident, rejected the contentions. The Tribunal, on observing from the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 that the accident had been caused by a head on collision as they observed that the conductor of the bus, R.W.2, who was standing near the driver of the bus had not sustained injuries, whereas P.W.1, who was seated in the middle of the bus had sustained injuries. Though P.W.1 had adduced evidence that the accident had occurred on the east side of the road, no documents had been filed on the respondent's side to show the damages sustained by the vehicles. The Tribunal further opined that mere granting of compensation for damages sustained by the bus could not be taken as indirect proof that the driver of the first respondent's lorry had been rash and negligent in his driving. Hence the Tribunal, on observing that the accident had taken near a curved road, opined that the accident could have been prevented if the driver of both the vehicles had driven their vehicles at a moderate speed. Hence, the Tribunal on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the first and third respondent's vehicles and hence held the first and second respondents liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed and the third respondent liable to pay 50% of the compensation to the petitioner.

11. P.W.4, Kamalam, the petitioner had adduced evidence that due to the accident, she had sustained fracture of bone in her leg and right shoulder and also sustained injuries in her chest and head. In support of her evidence, she had marked Ex.P5, wound certificate. P.W.18, Dr.Rajendran had adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner and found that the fractured right clavicle bone had not joined in a proper manner and due to this, the movements have become restricted. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained 34% disability in the said accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P25, disability certificate and Ex.P26-X-rays. The Tribunal on holding that the disability sustained by the petitioner is 30%, awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation under the head of disability; Rs.5,000/- was awarded for medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering; Rs.3,000/- for nutrition and Rs.2,000/- for attender charges. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the first and second respondents to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation, with costs, within two months from the date of its order. The third respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation, within two months from the date of its order.

12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent / TNSTC Limited, Pudukottai has preferred the present appeal.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to see that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the lorry driver and that the F.I.R was lodged only against the lorry driver. It was contended that the Tribunal ought not to have granted a sum of Rs.80,000/- as the claimant had sustained only simple injuries. It was submitted that the award was excessive and hence, it was prayed to set-aside the award.

14. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant is a coolie and she had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on her pelvic bone. The doctor had assessed the disability at 34%. Besides, she has sustained injuries on her knee, head, chest and right hand. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Tribunal had not granted compensation under the heads of 'transport and loss of earning during medical treatment period'. The learned counsel has further submitted that two heavy vehicles were involved in the accident and that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles.

15. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that in order to prove the contributory negligence, the claimant had not produced rough sketch to determine the tyre mark for fastening the liability on the side of the driver of the lorry. The learned counsel has further submitted that the driver of the Transport Corporation bus was solely responsible for the said accident.

16. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding contributory negligence, liability and quantum of compensation.

17. As per Court records, it is seen that this Court had imposed a condition on the appellant on 14.09.2010 to deposit the appellant's share amount of liability with interest. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the deposited compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1863 of 2003, on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional Sub Court, Trichy, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order.

18. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1863 of 2003, on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional Sub Court, Trichy, dated 20.04.2009 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. r n s To The III Additional Sub Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichy.