A. MARIAPPAN Vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the appellant in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The appeal has been preferred seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in its award dated 25.07.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.2145 of 2004 for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident that took place on 13.03.2004, which according to the appellant resulted in permanent disability with consequential loss of earning and loss of future earning capacity.

(2.) The appellant herein preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, City Civil Court), Chennai making a claim against the respondent Corporation and prayed for an award directing the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 13.03.2004 on the Arcot Road, opposite to Priya Hospital, Valasarawakkam, Chennai -87 together with interest and cost. It was contended therein that while the petitioner was riding his bicycle slowly and consciously from East to West on the Arcot Road, at about 22.40 hours on 13.03.2004, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N1935 belonging to the respondent Corporation came there driven by its driver rashly and negligently in the very same direction, as a result of which the petitioner along with his cycle was knocked down resulting in grevious injuries to the petitioner. Contending that the injuries, despite treatment resulted in permanent disability, the appellant had made the above said claim for compensation.

(3.) The respondent Transport Corporation resisted the claim contending that the bus belonging to the Respondent Corporation was not involved in the accident on the premise that the bus crew did not inform the management of the respondent Transport Corporation regarding the involvement of the above said bus on the date and time mentioned in the claim petition. It was further contended that the injuries sustained by the appellant / petitioner were simple in nature and the appellant was not even entitled to claim compensation under the no-fault liability clause found in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that unless the appellant could prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, he was not entitled to recover any amount as compensation. Besides the above said pleadings, the respondent Transport Corporation also chose to contend that the amount claimed as compensation was highly excessive, arbitrary and exorbitant. Based on the above said averment made in the counter, the respondent Corporation wanted the Tribunal to dismiss the claim preferred by the appellant herein.