(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set-aside the judgment and decree in so far as against this appellant is concerned is M.C.O.P.No.158 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Devakottai, dated 13.08.2008.)

1. The appellant / respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.158 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Devakottai.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner, viz., Visalatchi, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.158 of 2003, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 03.03.2003, the petitioner boarded the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN-63-N-0722, proceeding from R.S.Mangalam towards Trichy, at Kadambakudi. At about 08.30 a.m., when the petitioner was in the process of alighting the bus at the Othakadai bus stand near Devalkottai, through the front entrance, the driver of the bus started the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without noticing the petitioner alighting from the bus and as a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries on the back of her head. She was admitted at the Government Hospital and received treatment. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was working as an agricultural labourer and as a milk vendor and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to the disability sustained by her in the accident, she is not able to do her work as before. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the respondent / TNSTC Ltd., Karaikudi.

3. The respondent, in his counter has submitted that on 03.03.2003, at about 07.05 a.m, the driver of the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN-63-N-0722 had taken the bus on its trip from R.S.Mangalam to Devakottai and when the bus was proceeding about 50 ft before the bus stand at Devakottai, the driver of the vehicle on seeing that maintenance work was being undertaken on the main road, had proceeded to take the bus in the side road and the petitioner on seeing this, tried toalight from the moving bus, without even intimating the driver or conductor to stop the bus and as a result, she had fallen down. It was submitted that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner and not due to any negligence on the part of the bus driver. It was submitted that the petitioner should prove the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of petitioner through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration in the case, viz.,

"(i) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused

(ii) Is the respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner

(iii) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation as prayed for"

5. On the petitioners side, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R. dated 03.03.2003, Ex.P2-copy of wound certificate, Ex.P3-copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors report dated 04.03.2003, ExP4-copy of charge sheet dated 30.06.2003, Ex.P5-copy of criminal Court judgment dated 07.01.2004, Ex.P6-scan report and Ex.P7-bill. On the respondents side, one witness was examined and no document was marked.

6. P.W.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of her evidence, she had marked Exs.P1 to P7. The Tribunal observed that no mention had been made in the counter of the respondent, to show that the driver and conductor had informed the passengers in the bus, who were travelling to Devakottai, not to alight at the Othakadai bus stand, as the bus was being taken through an alternate route. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P1, F.I.R., observed that the complaint had been registered against the respondents bus driver for rash and negligent driving. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, it is seen that the accident had not been caused due to any mechanism failure in the bus. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, it is seen that the driver of the bus had admitted his guilt and paid the fine before the criminal Court. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the respondents bus driver and hence, held the respondent liable to pay compensation.

7. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for nutrition; Rs.10,000/- was awarded for medical expenses; Rs.25,000/- was awarded under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.1,000/- was awarded for damage to clothes and articles. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.46,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of deposit, with costs, within two months from the date of its order.

8. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent / TNSTC Ltd., Karaikudi has preferred the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the bus had erred in holding that the driver of the appellant was solely responsible for the accident. It was contended that the award passed under the heads of nourishment, damage of dress and articles, medical expenses and pain and suffering was excessive and hence, it was prayed to set-aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

10. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that while the claimant was alighting from the bus, the driver of the bus, without noticing the same, had driven it in a high speed. As a result, she lost her balance and fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The learned counsel further contended that a criminal case had been levelled against the driver of the bus, who had later admitted his guilt and paid the fine. Therefore, negligence and liability of the respondent had been proved in this case. The claimant had sustained head injuries and she had undergone treatment at Government Hospital for a long period. The claimant is doing agricultural work and is also a milk vendor. The quantum of compensation of a sum of Rs.46,000/- is not on the higher side. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the appeal since there is lacuna in the impugned order.

11. On verifying the facts and circumstance of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. As per this Court records, it is seen that this Court directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount, with interest. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount, if not deposited already, with accrued interest thereon, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.158 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Devakottai, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order.

12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.158 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Devakottai, dated 13.08.2008 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.