The court emphasized the duty to compensate injured claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering it as social welfare legislation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the Decree and Judgment made in MCOP No.414 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Fast Track Court No.4, Bhavani, Erode District dated 08.03.2012.)

1. The injured claimant has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The main ground raised in this appeal is that 50% negligence fixed on the injured claimant and thereby reducing the Compensation to that extent by the Tribunal, is not sustainable.

2. As per the averments in the claim petition, on 08.05.2010, at about 01.00 P.M, the claimant boarded in the TNSTC Bus at Erode bearing Reg.No.TN-33-N-1821 and when he tried to get down from the said bus at Savidipalayam Pudur, Maligai Kadai Bus stop, the 1st respondent moved the bus even before the claimant got down from the bus. Due to which, the claimant fell down from the bus and sustained fracture and bleeding injuries. Therefore, the claimant filed MCOP No.414 of 2010 seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined on the side of the claimant and twenty one (21) documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P21. On the side of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in, but one document was marked as ExR1 on the side of the Transport Corporation.

4. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a sum of Rs.3,43,636/- as total compensation. However on a finding that the injured was also equally negligent for the cause of accident, fixed the contributory negligence at the ratio of 50:50 and awarded Rs,1,71,818/- as compensation and directed the first respondent/driver and the second respondent/Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Ltd, to pay the compensation jointly and severally to the claimant.

5. As against the said findings of the Tribunal, the claimant is before this court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that due to the said accident, the appellant suffered head injuries and sustained 40% permanent disability. The Tribunal failed to consider the deposition of eye witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.4 who deposed that there is no negligence on the part of the claimant. P.W.1 in her testimony clearly stated that the accident occurred only due to sudden brake applied by the driver of the bus. The accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The Police without properly investigating the case, closed the F.I.R. as mistake of fact and in such circumstances, the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the claimant also have contributed 50% negligence to the accident.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Ltd submitted that the 1st respondent/driver operated the bus with utmost care and caution. The claimant alighted from the bus before the bus stop, hence the accident occurred. Therefore, the claimant is solely responsible for the accident. F.I.R. lodged against the driver of the bus belonging to the second respondent, was closed as mistake of fact. As such, the findings of the tribunal needs no interference.

8. This Court carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Ltd and perused the materials available on record.

9. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained permanent disability of 40% as evidenced by Doctor's disability certificate marked as Ex.P.17. Further it transpires from the evidence that the claimant was not able to walk, sit, stand and lift any weight and often suffering from his avocation viz. head ache. He was also not able to move his right leg and not able to do agricultural work. The learned Judge has granted only a sum of