MANAGING DIRECTOR METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORP LTD Vs. B KANNAN; K THAVAMANI; MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD ; KARTHIKEYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai, challenging the order dated 18.04.2011 passed in M.C.O.P. No: 120 of 2009 by the learned V Judge, Small Causes Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, granting a sum of Rs. 25,53,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 30,00,000/-. Challenging the very same award, the injured claimant has filed the Cross Objection as the compensation claimed was not granted in toto.

(2.) One B. Kannan, a resident of Chennai, is the claimant. On 18.04.2008, he was travelling from Chennai to Cheyyar as a passenger in the bus bearing Registration No: TN 32 N 2152 belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, in short referred to as T.N.S.T.C., the 3rd respondent herein. At about 02.10 hours, when the said bus was proceeding in Poonamallee High Road, opposite to Government Hospital near Palayathamman Kovil at Poonamallee, it colluded with another bus bearing Registration No: TN 01 N 4519 belonging to the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai, in short referred to as M.T.C., the appellant in the C.M.A. and the 1st respondent in the Cross Objection. The driver of both the buses are arrayed as R.2 and R.4. In the accident, the injured suffered serious injuries in his left leg and his right leg, below knee, was amputated. The Doctor, who treated the injured, assessed the disability at 90%. With such a disability, the injured claimant, who is an advocate by profession, filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 80,57,150/- and restricting it to a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. After contest, the Tribunal granted a total sum of Rs.25,53,000/- as compensation to the injured claimant. While M.T.C. contends that the said amount is on the higher side in the C.M.A., the injured, finding fault with the Tribunal in not awarding the full compensation claimed, has preferred the Cross Objection.

(3.) Before going further into the contentions raised by the parties, we would like to make a mention here that initially, while filing the C.M.A., the appellant M.T.C., had dispensed with the appearance of R.2 to R.4, the driver of the M.T.C. Bus, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Thiruvannamalai II Depot and its driver respectively. However, subsequently, vide order dated 07.08.2014 made in M.P. No: 1 of 2014 in C.M.A. No: 647 of 2012, this Court permitted to the petitioner / appellant to serve notice to the 3rd respondent, T.N.S.T.C.Ltd., ignording the endorsement for dispensed with. Accordingly, on service of notice, Mr. Paramasivadoss learned counsel appeared for the 3rd respondent both in the C.M.A. and in the Cross Objection.