JUDGMENT

Questioning the negligence and quantum, the transport corporation has filed this appeal.

2.The brief facts of the case is that on 20.05.2009 about 02.45 p.m., the respondent/claimant was travelling in a Maruti Car bearing Registration No.TN-45-AY-1960 along with his relative Selvaraj who was driving the Maruti Car and when the car was proceeding on the left side of Kalayakkadu Cross road, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-55-N-0374 belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and dashed against the Maruti car. As a result of which, the respondent/claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body including head injuries. For the injuries sustained in the accident, the respondent/claimant claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The appellant/Transport Corporation resisted the claim petition and denied the manner of accident. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant corporation bus and fixed the liability on the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- to the respondent/claimant with 7.5% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed this appeal questioning negligence and quantum.

3.The learned counsel for the appellant would state that the accident had not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the appellant's corporation bus, whereas it is only the driver of the Maruti Car had caused the accident and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have absolved the appellant from its liability to pay compensation. As far as quantum, the learned counsel would state that the Tribunal has fixed the partial permanent disability suffered by the respondent/claimant at 46% and awarded Rs.1,32,000/- on the basis of the evidence of the Doctor who neither treated the respondent/claimant nor assessed the disability and therefore, the award under the head disability compensation is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation under other heads and therefore, the award of the Tribunal requires interference.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no appearance for the respondent.

5.Perusal of record shows that the manner of accident has been amply proved by the evidence of PW1/claimant and corroborated by Ex.P1-FIR that the driver of the appellant's transport corporation bus was responsible for the accident, whereas, no rebuttal evidence was let in on the side of the appellant to disprove the case of the claimant. Thus, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the transport corporation bus and accordingly fixed liability on the appellant to pay the compensation, where, I do not find any infirmity.

6.As far as quantum, the claimant has stated that in the accident, he suffered grievous injuries all over the body and there was fracture of left femur, and right humerus and grievous injuries in head, chin, left temporal region, right eyebrow, right ankle and right shoulder. He took treatment as inpatient at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai, from 20.05.2009 to 10.06.2009, during which, a surgery has been done to fuse the fractured bones where, a rod has been fixed in the left femur and a plate has been inserted in the right humerus. PW2 Doctor who examined the claimant with reference to the medical records has stated that due to the fracture of left femur and right humerus, there is a decrease in the movement of hip and the right shoulder and due to which, the claimant would find it difficult to squat and lift heavy objects. PW2 Doctor has assessed the permanent disability sustained by the respondent/claimant at 46% and issued Ex.P8-disability certificate. However, the Tribunal taking into account the nature of i