Kerala High Court
The M.D., T N Stc Nagarcoil vs Laila George on 29 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
MACA NO. 1455 OF 2011
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16.05.2008 IN OPMV 2053/2004 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOTTAYAM,
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
THE TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MADURAI LTD,
DINDIGAUL, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADV SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 2ND RESPONDENT:
1 LAILA GEORGE
MUNJANATTU HOUSE, SREEVALSAM, VELLOOR P.O.,
THIRUVATHUKAL, KOTTAYAM.
2 HARIDAS W1/109
SWAMI VIVEKANANDA STREET, CIMBUM P.O. 600001
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 1455 OF 2011 2
Dated this the 29th day of October,2021
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the 2nd respondent in O.P (MV)
No.2053/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The 1st respondent was
the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was the 1st
respondent before the Tribunal. The parties are, for
the sake of convenience, referred to as per their
status before the Tribunal.
2. The petitioner had filed the claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988,
claiming compensation on account of the injuries that
she sustained in an accident 04.10.2003. It was her
case that, on the above said date, while she was
travelling in a car bearing registration No. KL 4-F-
3500 from Trichy to Dindigal, through the NH-45
road, a bus bearing registration No. TN-57/N-
1196(Bus) owned by the 2nd respondent and driven by
the 1st respondent in a negligent manner, hit the car.
The petitioner and other passengers in the car
sustained serious injuries. The petitioner was an
Assistant Executive Engineer in the Irrigation
Department, Kattappana and was drawing a monthly
salary of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner sustained a
fracture of her skull. She was treated as an inpatient
at the City Hospital, Dindigal for the period from
05.10.2003 to 16.10.2003. She sustained a
permanent disability of 9%. Hence, the petitioner
claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the
respondents.
3. The other passengers in the car who were
injured in accident filed OP(M.V) Nos.327, 1889,1977
and 2051 of 2004 before the same Tribunal.
4. The 1st respondent did not contest the
proceedings in all the claim petitions and was set ex
parte. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement
in O.P. (M.V ) No.327/2004. He was set ex parte in all
the other cases.
5. The Tribunal, consolidated and jointly tried all
the claim petitions.
6. The petitioners in all the claim petitions
produced and marked Exhibits A1 to A27 series in
evidence.
7. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and
materials on record, by its common award allowed the
captioned claim petition in part, by permitting the
petitioner to recover from the 2nd respondent an
amount of Rs.99,000/- with interest at the rate of 7%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realisation and a cost of Rs.3600/-
8. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the 2nd
respondent is in appeal.
9. Heard; Sri. Subhash Syriac the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/2nd respondent.
10. The principle grounds of challenge in the
memorandum of appeal are:- (i) the Tribunal went
wrong in fixing negligence on the part of the 1st
respondent. (ii) the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal to the petitioners under
different heads is excessive (iii) there was no
reduction in income for the petitioner due to the
accident.
Ground No.(i)
11. Exhibit A1 FIR, A2 scene mahazar and A3
AMVI report and A6 final report of Crime
No.439/2003 of Vadamadurai Police Station clearly
substantiates that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the 1st respondent/ the driver of the bus.
The respondents did not contest the above case or let
in any evidence to discredit the police records or
refute the assertion of the petitioner that there was
negligence on the part of the driver of the car.
12. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v.
Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648], a Division Bench
of this Court has categorically held that if any party
disputes the charge sheet, the burden is on such
party to let in evidence and discredit the same.
13. In the instant case, the respondents have not
contested the proceedings. Therefore, the finding of
the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the
negligence on the part of the 1st respondent is correct
and is hereby confirmed.
Ground No.(ii)
14. The petitioner has proved that she was an
Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department at
Kattappana. Exhibit A23 discharge summary proves
that she was treated as inpatient from 05.10.2003 to
16.10.2003. She had sustained head injuries. Exhibit
A26 disability certificate shows that she has a
permanent disability of 9%.
15. The Tribunal has after analysing the
pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim
petition by fixing the compensation amount at
Rs.99,000/- (i.e. Rs.1000 towards transport expenses,
Rs.1000/- damage to clothing, Rs.5000/- towards
extra nourishment, Rs.500/- towards by stander
expenses, Rs.63500/- towards medical expenses,
Rs.3000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.15000/-
towards pain and sufferings and Rs.10000/- towards
loss of amenities).
16. On a appreciation of the pleadings and
materials on record and considering the fact that the
accident was in the year 2003, and the impugned
award was passed on 16.05.2008, I hold that the
amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
reasonable and just, and does not warrant
interference by this Court.
Ground No.(iii)
17. In view of my findings on ground Nos(i) and
(ii), I also hold ground No.(iii) against the appellant.
18. On a comprehensive appreciation of the
pleadings and materials on record and the elaborate
findings rendered by the Tribunal, I do not find any
error in the compensation awarded at by the Tribunal.
19. The Honourable Supreme Court in New
Indian Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kiran Singh &
Others [2004 AIR SEW 4212] has depreciated the
practice of insurance companies/owners contesting
genuine claims in a routine manner and dragging the
parties to court and wasting enormous time and
money.
20. It is to be borne in mind that the accident
occurred as early as on 04.10.2003 i.e. 18 years back.
The appellant had not even bothered to contest the
proceedings before the Tribunal and has filed the
appeal only to stall the petitioner from enjoying the
fruits of the award.
21. It is trite, that the Tribunals are permitted to
do some guess work and also exercise their discretion
in awarding reasonable and just compensation, for
which there cannot be any straight jacket formula
based on arithmetic exactitude.
22. I find that the Tribunal has, after a
threadbare analysis of the facts, judicially exercised
its powers based on the provision of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and the precedents of the
Honourable Supreme Court has arrived at the
impugned conclusion. There are no justifiable
grounds in the memorandum of appeal warranting
admission of the appeal, which would only be a
further wastage of judicial time and harassment to
the respondents.
23. In the result, following the ratio in Kiran
Singh (supra), I hold that the appeal is devoid of any
merits and does not warrant admission. The Tribunal
shall, if the appellant fails to deposit the
compensation amount as per the impugned award,
proceed with the execution of the impugned award. In
case, the 1st respondent/petitioner does not seek for
the execution of the award, the Tribunal shall through
the District Legal Services Authority inform the 1 st
respondent/petitioner about the dismissal of the
appeal and disburse the compensation amount. The
Registry shall forward a certified copy of the
judgment to the 1st respondent/petitioner and the
Tribunal for information and compliance.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
rmm/29.10.2021
