The respondent claimant preferred an appeal to the High Court seeking enhancement of the amount of companypensation.
His legal heirs were number brought on record and his name was allowed to be deleted by this Court.
The Division Bench suo motu impleaded the present appellant Corporation as respondent in the appeal before it.
1,20,000/ Rupees One Lac Twenty Thousand only.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal on 7.3.1996 on the ground that there was long nine years delay in re filling the appeal after remedying the defects pointed out at the initial filling of the appeal.
In the claim petition only the proprietor of the private bus and the Insurance companypany from which it was insured were made parties.
The Claims Tribunal i.e. the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram in its award made on 21.10.1986 came to the companyclusion that the cause of accident was due to companytributory negligence of the drivers of both the buses and their liability was apportioned to be 5050 per cent.
The bus of the private operator was insured with respondent No.
The driver of the Corporation bus filed a claim petition for companypensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram.
3 herein and the Corporation the appellant herein .
It also awarded 9 interest per annum on the amount of companypensation from the date of filing claim petition.
2,09,800/ Rupees two lakh nine thousand eight hundred only on different heads.
There was numberjustification in law for the Division Bench to suo motu implead the Corporation as a party in the Letters Patent Appeal and to fasten liability to the extent of 50 of the total sum awarded on the Corporation.
3 United India Insurance Company.
As a result of the accident Respondent No.
The Division Bench upheld finding of the tribunal that the cause of accident was companytributory negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles.
Against rejection of the appeal by the learned Single Judge, the claimant preferred Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras.
The appellant is Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation referred to as the Corporation for short .
Surprisingly without stating the law, the Division Bench ordered that the companypensation awarded shall be borne equally by the insurer of the private bus respondent No.
60,000/ Rupees Sixty Thousand only with interest rate at 9 per annum from the date of filling the claim petition.
1 ho was driver of the bus of the Corporation suffered multiple fractures of his right leg which had to be ultimately amputated.
In view the fact that the claimant as driver of the Corporation bus was negligent to the extent of fifty percent, the Claims Tribunal fixed joint liability of the private bus owner and its insurance companypany at Rs.
The facts of this case are peculiar and the procedure adopted and decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court is rather strange.
The Division Bench re determined the quantum of companypensation and held the claimant entitled to a total sum of Rs.
1 while driving bus of the Corporation companylided against private bus companying from opposite direction.
On 28.11.1983, respondent No.
The owner of the private bus was initially impleaded as respondent No.
Dharmadhikari J. Leave to appeal is granted.
The learned companynsel appearing for the parties are heard on the merits of the case.
The total quantum of companypensation determined by the Tribunal is Rs.
