The Court considered the negligent driving, continuous treatment, loss of income, and disability of the claimant in determining the enhanced compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.

Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decree dated 07.02.2019 in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

1. C.M.A.No.158 of 2021 is filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation against the award dated 07.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. C.M.A.No.3354 of 2019 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation granted by the award dated 07.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident and award, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to as per their ranks in the claim petition for the sake of convenience.

4. The claimant filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.2692 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 27.06.2011. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.

5. According to the claimant, he was working as a Conductor in the 1st respondent's bus bearing Regn.No.TN-38-N-2487 which was plying from Coimbatore to Krishnagiri. At about 03.45 hours, while the 1st respondent's bus was proceeding on Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri Road, near Kaveripattinam in Dharmapuri Road and near to Kaveripattinam Errahalli bus stop, the lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-39-Y-4686 belonging to the 2nd respondent and the said lorry was insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, came in a rash and negligent manner and colluded with the 1st respondent's bus. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries.

6. Resisting the claim petition, the 1at respondent/Transport Corporation filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that there was no negligent on the part of the driver of the Transport corporation bus while the lorry driver suddenly stopped the vehicle without any caution which was going ahead, resulted in dashing the lorry by the TC bus. Therefore, it is contended that the accident happened only due to the negligence of the lorry driver who stopped the lorry in the middle of the road without indication or caution. The FIR was lodged against the driver of the bus, but it is not a substantial piece of evidence to come to a conclusion by the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the Transport corporation bus. It is also disputed as regards income, age and injuries sustained by the claimant.

7. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company also filed a counter contending that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent's Transport Corporation bus and hit the rear side of the lorry, resulting in the lorry falling in a ditch which is situated on the left side of the road and there was no negligence on the part of the lorry driver and thereby the 1st respondent is liable to pay the compensation. This respondent also disputes the occupation, income of the claimant, place, date and time of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant.

8. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 & Doctor K.J.Mathiazhagan was examined as P.W.2, and marked Exs.P1 to P17. On the side of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, Mr.Srinivasa Rao was examined as R.W1 and Mr.Venkatesan was examined as R.W.2 and marked Exs.R1 to R2. The appellant/Transport Corporation did not let in any oral and documentary evide