The main legal point established in the judgment is the reasonable determination of liability in a motor vehicle accident, the assessment of partial permanent disability, and the reasonableness of the awarded compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.131 of 2011, dated 12.02.2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam.)

1.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.131 of 2011, dated 12.02.2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam. The appellant herein is the third respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the respondent s 2 & 3 herein are the respondents 1 & 2 in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. A brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.131 of 2011, is as follows:-

On 06.09.2010, when the second petitioner - Muralidharan and his son Hariharan travelled in the Cabin of a TATA Ace vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-68-B-2092, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-1550, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the mini Van. The second petitioner and the deceased sustained injuries. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries, he was admitted in K.S.Hospital and then, he was admitted in Anbu Hospital, Kumbakonam and he took treatment as inpatient from 06.09.2010 till 16.09.2010. He sustained multiple fractures in the left leg and chin. On 07.09.2010, he has undergone surgeries, plates and screws were fixed, again on 08.09.2010, he has undergone facial surgery, again, he was admitted on 30.11.2010 and he has undergone surgeries, to remove the screws, then he took treatment as out patient and he is undergoing physiotherapy. He is in need of another surgery. He was working as a sales officer in the Butterfly Home Appliance Company. He was earning Rs.9,000/- as salary, Rs.5,000/- towards travelling expenses and Rs.3,000/- by way of incentive. The petitioner suffers loss of income and he claim a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P.No. 131 of 2011, is as follows:-

The manner of accident is denied. The Insurance policy for the TATA Ace vehicle and the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle are all denied. The deceased and the second petitioner travelled only as gratuitous passengers and not as the owner of the goods. The petitioner has mentioned that the TATA Ace vehicle was driven in a careful and cautious manner, keeping the left side of the road, the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle was not responsible for the accident. The accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent.

4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent, in 131 of 2011, is as follows:-

The accident was not due to the rash or negligent driving of the bus driver. Even in the F.I.R, it was mentioned that the bus came in a slow speed, but, it was the TATA Ace vehicle, which came in a rash and negligent manner. There is contradiction between the wordings in the F.I.R and the wordings in the M.V.I. report. The accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the TATA Ace vehicle. The respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

5. The petitioner and another person filed a claim petition M.C.O.P. No.130 of 2011, for the death of the deceased and the petitioner filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.131 of 2011 for his injury. Both the cases are taken up for joint trial and a common judgment was pronounced by the Tribunal.

6. In the joint trial, 3 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were marked on the side of the petitioners. 4 witnesses were examined and 2 documents were marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,24,000/- as compensation and 50% of the compensation (Rs.62,050/-) to be paid by the second respondent and 50% (Rs.62,050/-) of the compensation to be paid by the third respondent.

7. Against the award, the third respondent - appellan