The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of negligence and compensation for injuries under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 15.11.2018, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1084 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Court, Thanjavur.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1084 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Court, Thanjavur.

2. The Transport Corporation is the appellant herein, challenging the award of the Tribunal made in M.C.O.P.No.1084 of 2017.

3. The respondent herein is the claim petitioner filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road transport accident on 28.09.2016. The Tribunal on consideration of both the oral and documentary evidence, has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,45,797/- and hence, the Transport corporation has filed the appeal on two grounds, namely, negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry (the another vehicle involved in the accident) and on the point of quantum of compensation.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records.

5. The claim petitioner both in her petition as well as in her evidence as P.W.1, has deposed that on 28.09.2016 at about 09.50 p.m., the petitioner was travelling as a passenger in the respondent corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-3327 from Devakottai into order to come to Trichy in Karaikudi to Trichy Main Road. While the bus was going near Thirumayam cut road, the bus was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from south to north and tried to overtake the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-07-B-0997 which was going in front of the bus and dashed right side body of the lorry. In this accident, many of the passengers were sustained injuries and one of the passenger died in the bus. The petitioner was sustained fracture in her both legs and multiple injuries all over her body. He was at once taken to Pudukottai Government Hospital for first aid treatment and then she was admitted in TMCH Hospital, Thanjavur. For further treatment, she was admitted in N.H. Ortho Care, Ramanathapuram as inpatient for continuous treatment.

6. It is her further case that while the bus was going near Thirumayam cut road, the driver of the above said bus, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and tried to overtake the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-07-B-0997 which was going in front of the lorry and dashed the right side body of the lorry. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained severe injuries and admitted in the hospital. Hence, this petition.

7. In the counter statement filed by the appellant / Transport Corporation, before the Tribunal, it is averred that the accident was happened only due to the carelessness of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-07-B-0997, who drove the vehicle in a negligent manner, suddenly turned his vehicle on the right and dashed against the left body of the respondent's bus.

8. It is seen from the records that during trial the petitioner, Saleema was examined as P.W.1 through whom, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked. Dr.Rethinasabapathy was examined as P.W.2, through whom, Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 were marked. On the side of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

9. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claim petitioner / injured, I find that the petitioner Saleema was examined as P.W.1 and she has stated in her evidence that the accident was happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-3327. The copy of FIR is marked as Ex.P.1 and it is also registered against the driver of the respondent's bus. There is no contra evidence to show that the accident was not happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent's bus. The driver of the respondent's bus was not examined before the Cou