- (1.) (The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment & Decree dated 08.02.2001 made in M.C.O.P.No.347 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Cuddalore.) Aggrieved by an order dated 08.02.2001 made in M.C.O.P.No.347 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Cuddalore, the Transport Corporation preferred this appeal.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the appeal are as follows: On 24.10.1996, at about 7.10 p.m., when the respondent/claimant was traveling in a bus, owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation, another bus bearing Registration No.TN-31-N-0552 came in the opposite direction at a high speed, dashed against the rear portion of the bus. As a result of which, the respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries and multiple communited fractures in distal humerus with intera anticular extensions and fracture of Olecranon in his right hand. Immediately, he was rushed to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore and thereafter, he was referred to Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore. Again, he was treated in Bone and Joint Clinic, Chennai and underwent two surgeries during the period of treatment. He was an E.N.T.Professor and Head of the Department at Thanjavur Medical College. He claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim petition and contended that on 24.10.1996, the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus drove the vehicle carefully and cautiously. Another bus bearing Registration No.TN-31-N-0552 came in the opposite direction and while crossing the bus, the respondent/claimant stretched his hand outside the bus and sustained injuries. The driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident and it was purely the fault of the respondent/claimant, who kept his hand on the window sill. Therefore, the appellant-Transport Corporation contended that they are not liable to pay compensation. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/claimant examined himself as PW.1. PW.2 is the Auditor of the respondent/claimant. PW.3 is the Manager and partner of Vijaya Poly Clinic, Thanjavur. PW.4 is the Doctor who examined the respondent/claimant with reference to the medical records. PW.5 is another Doctor. Exs.P1 to P155 were marked on behalf of the respondent/claimant. On behalf of the appellant-Transport Corporation, The driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW.1 and no document was marked.
(3.) THE Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus was responsible for the accident and awarded Rs.9,83,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Heard Mrs. S. Geetha for Mr. R. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned counsel for the respondent.;