Negligence by the bus driver led to the accident; compensation was enhanced based on 50% permanent disability.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeal have been filed as against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil MCOP No.418 of 2007 dated 16.11.2017.

2. The claimant is the appellant in CMA(MD) No.653 of 2018 and the first respondent in CMA(MD) No.381 of 2024. The first respondent in C.M.A.(MD)No.653 of 2018 is the appellant in CMA(MD)No.381 of 2024 and the respondents 2 and 3 in CMA(MD) No.653 of 2018 are the respondent in CMA(MD) No.381 of 2024.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the appellant in CMA(MD) No.653 of 2018 hereinafter referred to as claimant/appellant and the appellant in CMA(MD) No.381 of 2024 hereinafter referred to as first respondent/Transport Corporation.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant has filed a claim petition alleging that on 05.12.2006 at about 12.05 a.m., when she was travelling in the Government bus bearing Reg.No.TN 01 6357 while the bus was crossing Panankulam bus stop, the bus dashed against the lorry which came in the opposite direction and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained injuries all over her body. She was immediately taken to the Sakthi Hospital, Tirunelveli on 06.12.2006 and thereafter, admitted as inpatient at Krishna Hospital, Palayamkottai from 06.12.2006 to 10.12.2006.. Thereafter, from 10.12.206 to 30.12.2006, she has taken treatment at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai and thereafter, he took treatment at Karthik Hospital, Thanjavur from 30.12.2006. The accident took place due to negligence on the part of the bus driver. For abundant caution, the insurer of the lorry is impleaded as party and therefore the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the appellant/claimant.

5. The first respondent / Managing Directorof Transport Corporation had filed counter by denying the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and also they denied the age, income of the petitioner and also the manner of accident. The accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the lorry driver and therefore, the first respondent bus driver is no way responsible for the accident and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

6. The third respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and also denied the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. According to the third respondent, the accident had happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the respondents 2 and 3 are unnecessary parties to the petition and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Based on the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for determination?

a) On whose negligence, the accident dated 05.12.2006 had taken place?

b) What is the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner?

c) Who has to pay the compensation to the petitioner?

8. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P.1 to 9 were marked and on the side of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced.

9. Based on the evidence adduced on both sides, the Tribunal fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent bus and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability and also awarded a sum of Rs.7,46,564/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the realization of the amount.

10. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant has preferred appeal for enhancement of compensation in CMA (MD) No. 653 of 2018 and the first respondent Transport Corporation has preferred appeal in CMA(MD) No.381 of 2024 challenging the negligence a