Point of Law: Motor Vehicle – Accident - Permanent disability certificate, which would clearly reveal that fixing 35% disability on the respondent / claimant is a just one

JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated 09.12.2015 made in MCOP No.6 of 2013 on the file of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai. in MCOP No.6 of 2013, directing the appellant Transport Corporation to pay the claimant a sum of Rs.2,18,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him, as a result of an accident caused by a bus owned by the appellant / Transport Corporation.

2. The respondent / claimant sustained injuries as a result of an accident on 13.12.2008 caused by a bus bearing Registration No. TN-32-N- 2485 owned by the appellant Transport Corporation. The respondent / claimant has sustained three fractures on his left leg, right hand and he was treated at Government Hospital, Chenglepet; JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry and in a private hospital i.e. Abirami Hospital, Cuddalore and MIOT Hospital in Chennai.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent / claimant has made a claim for Rs.10,00,000/-. But however, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.2,18,000/- as compensation to the respondent / claimant. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award are as follows:

4. Aggrieved by the award dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai in M.C.O.P. No.6 of 2013, this appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Insurance Company.

5. Heard Mr.J.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the appellant. Since, this Court is going to confirm the award of the Tribunal, service of notice to the respondent is not necessary.

6. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award.

7. Before the Tribunal, the respondent / claimant has filed the following documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to P29 and three witnesses were examined on his side viz., the respondent / claimant himself as PW1, an eyewitness to the accident as PW2 and the Doctor, who examined him as PW3. On the side of the appellant, one witness was examined, but no Exhibits were marked.

8. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the ground that mere registration of an FIR is not enough for holding negligence on their part and the Tribunal has also erred in taking the permanent disability of the respondent / claimant 35%, which according to them is on the higher side.

9. Insofar as the first contention raised by the appellant is concerned, the respondent/ claimant has proved his case by not alone filing an FIR, which has been marked as Ex.P1 but has also adduced oral evidence through an eyewitness to the accident viz., PW2. No contra evidence has been produced by the appellant before the Tribunal to disprove the contention of the respondent/ claimant that only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus owned by the appellant / Transport Corporation, the accident had happened which resulted in injuries sustained by him. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no basis for the appellant to contend that mere registration of an FIR against the Driver of the bus without corroboration by any other independent witness.

10. Insofar as the fixation of 35% disability on the respondent / claimant is concerned, the same is supported by documentary evidence, which has been marked as Exhibits before the Tribunal. Admitte