The court affirmed the principle of full compensation for personal injuries, emphasizing the need to consider both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in motor accident claims.

ORDER :

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The Transport Corporation filed this appeal, challenging the award passed in the M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar.

2. The claimant filed the claim petition M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2019, claiming the compensation for the loss of her right hand in the accident said to have happened on 10.08.2016.

3. The respondent claimant is a teacher. After the school hours, on 10.08.2016, when she was returning in her Vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-35-K-8523 on Kamudhi-Veeracholan Main Road to reach her residence at Veeracholan, from south-north direction, the appellant corporation bus came from north to south direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the right side of the injured claimant, and as a result, she sustained crushed injury on her right hand. Therefore, her right hand was amputated. Hence, the police registered the case against the appellant Transport Corporation driver, namely, RW1 and investigated the case and filed the final report before the Jurisdictional Court. Pending the criminal proceedings, claimant filed the petition before the Court below claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

4. In the claim petition, she has averred that at the time of accident, she was working as a teacher and as a result of the amputation of the right hand, she is unable to do even her daily routine habits, namely wearing her inner wear and other routine daily activities. Further, due to the accident, her entire life is paralyzed, her social activities totally crippled, and hence, she filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

5. The appellant corporation filed the counter denying the manner of the accident and disputing the loss of income pleaded by the injured claimant. In the counter of the appellant corporation it is specifically stated that when the injured claimant overtook the parked van, she herself rammed into the oncoming bus. Hence, there was no negligence on the part of the corporation bus and in any case, the contributory negligence is to be attributed against the injured claimant and also the injured claimant did not wear the helmet and hence, the contributory negligence ought to have been fixed upon the injured claimant. With these pleadings, the Trial Court commenced the proceedings.

6. During the course of the trial, the injured claimant, to prove the claim, examined P.W.1 and 2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 and on the side of the respondent, RW1, driver of the bus was examined and the permanent disability certificate was marked as EX.C1.

7. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence and also all the material documents, fixed the negligence upon R.W.1 and held that due to the rash and negligent driving of R.W.1, the accident happened and hence the entire negligence was fixed upon the driver of the appellant corporation bus. The Tribunal applying the principle of multiplier, fixed the loss of earning under permanent disability and granted Rs.30,68,640/- and the medical expenditure of Rs.3,32,302/-.

8. The transport corporation filed the appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.107 of 2021, challenging the award amount granted by the impugned judgment. The injured claimant also filed the appeal to enhance the compensation granted by the Court below. Both cases were taken together. The learned counsel for the Appellant in C.M.A.(MD).No.567 of 2020 Corporation made the following submissions:-

9. From the records, including the sketch marked on the side of the claimant and the evidence of the R.W.1, it is clear that the injured claimant contributed by her own negligence to the accident. According to the learned counsel for the transport corporation, the injured overtook the parked van and hit against the oncoming appellant Transport Corporation vehicle. R.W.1 clearly deposed before the court that only due to the negligence of the injured claimant the accident happened and the same was not properly considered. Hence the learned tri