The judgment emphasizes the need for just and reasonable compensation in motor accident claims, considering factors such as negligence, disability assessment, and quantum of compensation.

Aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.3,11,600/- for the injuries sustained by the respondent/claimant, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Sub Court Mayiladuthurai, the State Express Transport Corporation has preferred this Appeal.

2. The respondent/claimant has been working as a driver in Kuwait. In order to obtain Visa and to complete other formalities for travelling abroad, on 06.09.1998, the respondent/claimant travelled in the bus owned by the appellant Corporation bearing registration no.TN-01-N-0710, from Mayiladuthurai to Chennai. At about 4.00 p.m., when the bus was proceeding in Melmaruvathur – GST road, near Pappathi Kulam, the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a stationary lorry attached to a trailer. Due to collusion, the claimant, who was travelling in the bus, sustained fractures in his right leg. The claimant was admitted in Chengalpattu Government Hospital and later, he was admitted in Private Hospital – Bone and Joint Clinic at Madras. Due to fracture injury, claimant has suffered permanent disability. Claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- respondent/claimant has filed the claim Petition.

3. The appellant Corporation resisted the Claim Petition contending that the accident took place because the trailer was stationed without any danger signal indication and the claimant ought to have impleaded the owner of the lorry and the Insurance Company in which the lorry was insured. The quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is on the higher side.

4. Before the Tribunal, claimant examined himself as PW-1. Dr.Rajasekaran, who issued Disability Certificate was examined as PW-2. Co-passenger Ramu was examined as PW-3. Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. Onbehalf of the Appellant Corporation, driver was examined as RW-1.

5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The Tribunal also held that the bus driver did not take due care while proceeding on the high way and he was negligent in hitting against the trailer parked along the road side. The Tribunal rejected the plea of the Corporation that the bus driver swerved to the road side because of overtaking of another bus on the left side. Based on the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.P-8 – permanent Disability Certificate, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 35%. As the claimant was aged 38 years, Tribunal adopted multiplier of 16 and awarded compensation of Rs.3,11,600 under various heads.

6. The contention of the appellant Corporation is two fold. Firstly, that the bus was not driven in a rash and negligent manner and secondly, the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive.

7. Claiming enhanced compensation, claimant has also filed cross objection. According to the claimant, he was employed as driver in Kuwait and since his right leg is now affected, he is incapacitated from driving the vehicle and while so, the Tribunal erred in fixing the disability at 35% and awarding lesser compensation.

8. Insofar as the first limb of argument is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Appellant Corporation contended that the Tribunal erred in discarding the evidence of RW-1. It was submitted that only to avoid another vehicle, which had overtaken the bus on the left side, the bus driver was compelled to swerve the bus on the right side and in that course, hit against the parking vehicle. The learned Counsel submitted that no negligence could be attributed to RW-1 since there was no red light/danger light indicating parking of the trailer on the right side. Evidence on record shows that the bus belonging to Corporation was driven in the right side of the road and hit against the stationary trailer, which was caused on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus in driving the bus. The bus appears to have deflected towards the right side hitting against the stationary trailer. Evidence on record clearly bring