LAWS(MAD)-1981-7-3

PANDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION MADURAI Vs. KARUNANITHI

Decided On July 02, 1981
PANDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION, MADURAI Appellant
V/S
KARUNANITHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Pandian Roadways Corporation has filed this appeal against an award of compensation passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai in M. A. C. O. P. 112 of 1978.

(2.) On 13-2-1978 at about 8-30 a. m. the claimant was Traveling with his brother on a cycle. His younger brother was seated on the back seat. The cycle was coming from North to South near the Indian Bank colony, Natham Road, Maduari. At that time the city bus TMN 5186, belonging to the appellant and driven by the second respondent was coming from South to North. The cycle was proceeding on the left side of the road. At first they came in front of the city bus. On seeing the dogs the second respondent slowed down the bus and the dogs proceeded towards the cycle. In order to avoid the dogs, the brother of the injured slightly turned the cycle towards his right and he lost his balance. The three occupants of the cycle fell down. While the claimant fell down on the right side in front of the cycle, the other two brothers fell down on the left. At that time the front wheel of the bus came into contact with the right arm of the claimant and the tyre tore off all the muscles of the right hand and the bones were visible. If the driver of the bus had completely stopped the vehicle, the accident, according to the claimant, would not have taken place. The claimant, therefore, alleged that the injury to his hand was solely due to the negligence of the second respondent and that the appellant was vicariously liable. The compensation claimed was Rs. 50,000/- made up of Rs. 500/- for extra nourishment, Rs. 5000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 44500/- for continuing or permanent disability and for loss of earning power.

(3.) The appellant denied any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver and contended in its statement before the tribunal that the accident was brought about solely by the careless manner in which the brother of the claimant was driving the cycle. An objection was also taken to the amount of compensation claimed.