The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for injury under the Motor Vehicles Act, including the principles of negligence, vicarious liability, and assessment of damages.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the award passed in M.C.O.P.No. 902 of 2012 dated 06.10.2015 on the file of the 4th Additional Subordinate Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Madurai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (4th Additional Subordinate Judge), at Madurai in M.C.O.P.No.902 of 2012 dated 06.10.2015. The appellant herein is the claimant in the claim petition and the injured claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed herein as per the rank in M.C.O.P.No.902 of 2012.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as follows:

On 22.07.2011 at about 17.15 hours at Cumbam to Chinnamanur Main road near Anumanthapatty bus stop I.e., 3 kms south of Uthamapalayam Police Station, the petitioner was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.TN-72-N-1213 belonging to the respondent as passenger from Cumbam to Chinnamanur. Due to the over crowd in the bus, the petitioner was standing near the front entrance of the bus, while the same was running along Cumbam to Chinnamanur road from north to south direction. When the bus was proceeding from north to south, the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and while the bus was crossing Cumbam, he applied sudden break causing a sudden jolt. As a result of which, the petitioner was thrown away from the bus and sustained severe head injury and she was immediately rushed to Uthamapalayam Government Hospital for first aid and from there, she was shifted to Devadoss Multispeciality hospital on 22.07.2011 itself. Thereafter, she was discharged on 02.08.2011. After which, she continued her treatment as out patient. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent. As a result of which, the petitioner has filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent Corporation for the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent Corporation to compensate the injury sustained by the her/injured.

4. The respondent Corporation had filed a counter before the learned Tribunal refuting the allegations made by the petitioner in the claim petition and claimed that the accident happened only due to the petitioner who failed to hold the hand bar near the front entrance.

5. The learned Tribunal framed three issues and three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 thereby marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 on the side of the petitioner and one witness was examined on the side of the respondent Corporation and no document was marked. The learned Tribunal after recording the evidence and hearing the arguments advanced on both the sides and scrutinizing the evidence, both the oral and documentary and upon appreciation of evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the respondent Corporation. The respondent Corporation is held vicariously liable for the conduct of the driver of the Corporation. The partial permanent disability of 39% as fixed by P.W.3 Doctor Adiyappan is excessive and the learned Tribunal has reduced the same to 29% and had calculated compensation for partial permanent disability by fixing Rs. 2,000/- per percentage for 29%. Thereby, a sum of Rs.58,000/- granted towards partial permanent disability. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- (Rs.4,500x2) for loss of income for two months. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads:-