Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Ltd. v. Laila George and Haridas

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943** **MACA NO. 1455 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16.05.2008 IN OPMV 2053/2004 OF MOTOR** ## **ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOTTAYAM,** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:** THE TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MADURAI LTD, DINDIGAUL, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 2ND RESPONDENT:** 1 LAILA GEORGE MUNJANATTU HOUSE, SREEVALSAM, VELLOOR P.O., THIRUVATHUKAL, KOTTAYAM. 2 HARIDAS W1/109 SWAMI VIVEKANANDA STREET, CIMBUM P.O. 600001 **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA NO. 1455 OF 2011 2** Dated this the 29[th] day of October,2021 ## **J U D G M E N T** The appellant was the 2[nd] respondent in O.P (MV) No.2053/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The 1[st] respondent was the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent was the 1st respondent before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. 2. The petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that she sustained in an accident 04.10.2003. It was her case that, on the above said date, while she was travelling in a car bearing registration No. KL 4-F3500 from Trichy to Dindigal, through the NH-45 road, a bus bearing registration No. TN-57/N- ## **MACA NO. 1455 OF 2011 3** 1196(Bus) owned by the 2[nd] respondent and driven by the 1[st] respondent in a negligent manner, hit the car. The petitioner and other passengers in the car sustained serious injuries. The petitioner was an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department, Kattappana and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner sustained a fracture of her skull. She was treated as an inpatient at the City Hospital, Dindigal for the period from 05.10.2003 to 16.10.2003. She sustained a permanent disability of 9%. Hence, the petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondents. 3. The other passengers in the car who were injured in accident filed OP(M.V) Nos.327, 1889,1977 and 2051 of 2004 before the same Tribunal. 4. The 1[st] respondent did not contest the proceedings in all the claim petitions and was set ex ## **MACA NO. 1455 OF 2011 4** parte. The 2[nd] respondent filed a written statement in O.P. (M.V ) No.327/2004. He was set ex parte in all the other cases. 5. The Tribunal, consolidated and jointly tried all the claim petitions. 6. The petitioners in all the claim petitions produced and marked Exhibits A1 to A27 series in evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by its common award allowed the captioned claim petition in part, by permitting the petitioner to recover from the 2[nd] respondent an amount of Rs.99,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and a cost of Rs.3600/- 8. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the 2[nd] respondent is in appeal. 9. Heard; Sri. Subhash Syriac the learned counsel ## **MACA NO. 1455 OF 2011 5** appearing for the appellant/2nd respondent. 10. The principle grounds of challenge in the memorandum of appeal are:- (i) the Tribunal went wrong in fixing negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. (ii) the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the petitioners under different heads is excessive (iii) there was no reduction in income for the petitioner due to the accident. ## **Ground No.(i)** 11. Exhibit A1 FIR, A2 scene mahazar and A3 AMVI report and A6 final report of Crime No.439/2003 of Vadamadurai Police Station clearly substantiates that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1[st] respondent/ the driver of the bus. The respondents did not contest the above case or let in any evidence to discredit the police records or refute the assertion of the petitioner that there was ## **MACA NO. 1455 OF 2011 6** negligence on the part of the driver of the car. 12. In **New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal** [2011 (3) KLT 648], a Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that if any party disputes the charge sheet, the burden is on such party to let in evidence and discredit the same. 13. In the instant case, the respondents have not contested the proceedings. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent is correct and is hereby confirmed. ## **Ground No.(ii)** 14. The petitioner has proved that she was an Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department at Kattappana. Exhibit A23 discharge summary proves that she was treated as inpatient from 05.10.2003 to 16.10.2003. She had sustained head injuries. Exhibit A26 certificate shows that she has a disability ## **MACA NO. 1455 OF 2011 7** permanent disability of 9%. 15. The Tribunal has after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition by fixing the compensation amount at Rs.99,000/- (i.e. Rs.1000 towards transport expenses, Rs.1000/- damage to clothing, Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.500/- towards by stander expenses, Rs.63500/- towards medical expenses, Rs.3000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.15000/towards pain and sufferings and Rs.10000/- towards loss of amenities). 16. On a appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and considering the fact that the accident was in the year 2003, and the impugned award was passed on 16.05.2008, I hold that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just, and does not warrant interference by this Court. ## **MACA NO. 1455 OF 2011 8** ## **Ground No.(iii)** 17. In view of my findings on ground Nos(i) and (ii), I also hold ground No.(iii) against the appellant. 18. On a comprehensive appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and the elaborate findings rendered by the Tribunal, I do not find any error in the compensation awarded at by the Tribunal. 19. The Honourable Supreme Court in **New Indian Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kiran Singh & Others** [2004 AIR SEW 4212] has depreciated the practice of insurance companies/owners contesting genuine claims in a routine manner and dragging the parties to court and wasting enormous time and money. 20. It is to be borne in mind that the accident occurred as early as on 04.10.2003 i.e. 18 years back. The appellant had not even bothered to contest the proceedings before the Tribunal and has filed the ## **MACA NO. 1455 OF 2011 9** appeal only to stall the petitioner from enjoying the fruits of the award. 21. It is trite, that the Tribunals are permitted to do some guess work and also exercise their discretion in awarding reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straight jacket formula based on arithmetic exactitude. 22. I find that the Tribunal has, after a threadbare analysis of the facts, judicially exercised its powers based on the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the precedents of the Honourable Supreme Court has arrived at the conclusion. There are no impugned justifiable grounds in the memorandum of appeal warranting admission of the appeal, which would only be a further wastage of judicial time and harassment to the respondents. 23. In the result, following the ratio in **Kiran** **MACA NO. 1455 OF 2011 10** **Singh** (supra), I hold that the appeal is devoid of any merits and does not warrant admission. The Tribunal shall, if the appellant fails to deposit the compensation amount as per the impugned award, proceed with the execution of the impugned award. In case, the 1[st] respondent/petitioner does not seek for the execution of the award, the Tribunal shall through the District Legal Services Authority inform the 1[st] respondent/petitioner about the dismissal of the appeal and disburse the compensation amount. The Registry shall forward a certified copy of the judgment to the 1[st] respondent/petitioner and the Tribunal for information and compliance. SD/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rmm/29.10.2021