IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.02.2010
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 and 135 of 2006
C.M.A.No.119 of 2006:
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.8, Esplanade Road,
Chennai-108. ... Appellant
vs.
1. R.Gopalakrishnan
2. Malathi Subramanian
3. R.D.Mani
4. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram Division 1) Limited,
Villupuram. ... Respondents.
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Common Judgment and decree dated 22.11.2004 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.2653 to 2656, 3023, 3205, 3964, 3965, 4028 to 4033/2000, 1906/2001 and 5279/2001 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [V Judge, Small Causes Court], Chennai
For Appellants in
all CMAs : Mr.S.Manohar
For Respondents in
CMA.No.119/06 : Mr.P.G.Padmanabhan -R5
No Appearance R1 to R3
COMMON JUDGMENT
R.BANUMATHI,J
Being aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal holding that insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-04C 3199 and Appellant-Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Claimants in fatal cases and personal injury cases, Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred these Appeals.
2. In these Appeals, notice of motion was ordered and the appeals were listed under the caption 'Notice of Motion". Some of the Claimants have entered appearance and others have not entered appearance and their names were printed in the cause list. As the accident is of the year 2000 and the question of apportionment of negligence was already determined by the another Division Bench in C.M.A.No.2168/2004, with consent of appearing counsels, the appeals were taken up for final hearing.
3. Brief facts which led to the filing of Claim Petitions are that on 10.04.2000, deceased and injured Claimants were travelling in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-32N 0579 from Cuddalore to Chennai. When the bus was nearing Thabal Medu Bridge on G.S.T.Road at about 12.40 P.M., the lorry bearing registration No.TN-04C 3199 came in the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the bus. There were many deaths and number of passengers sustained injuries. Criminal case was registered against the lorry driver in Crime No.100/2000 of Padalam Police Station. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of both lorry driver and bus driver and that both Appellant-Insurance Company and Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, dependents of deceased persons and injured persons have filed number of Claim Petitions.
4. Before the Tribunal, Claimants and Doctors were examined as PWs.1 to 19 and Exs.P1 to P93 were marked on the side of Claimants. One Perumal, Motor Vehicle Inspector was examined as RW1 and Inspection report was marked as Ex.R1.
5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of lorry driver and that insured and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the entire compensation to all the Claimants.
6. PW1-Gopal [Claimant in CMA.No.125/2006] who travelled in the bus has spoken about the accident that while Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus proceeding on G.S.T. Road Thabal Medu Bridge, the lorry bearing registration No.TN-04C 3199 came in the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the bus. PW9-Ravi who also travelled as passenger in the bus sustained injuries has corroborated the evidence the PW1. Even though, suggestions were put to the witnesses denying the negligent driving of the lorry driver, nothing substantial was elicited. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence [Exs.P2 and P3], Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of lorry driver.
7. Regarding the same accident, in some other Batch matters, other Tribunals fixed contributory negligence of the lorry driver and bus driver at different ratios. In some other cases, it was fixed at 75% : 25% and in some other cases at 50% : 50%. Challenging the contributory negligence fixed at 60% : 40%, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed C.M.A.No.2168/2004. The Division Bench has fixed the contributory negligence of the driver of the lorry and bus in the ratio of 50% : 50%. The above decision of the Division Bench remains unchallenged. Agreeing with the view taken by the Division Bench in C.M.A.No.2168/2004 and the contributory negligence of the driver of lorry and the bus is fixed in the ratio of 50% : 50%.
FATAL CASES:-
8. C.M.A.Nos.119/2006 & 122/2006 [M.C.O.P.Nos.2653/2000 & 2656/2000]:-
For the death of Pattammal and Rajagopalan, Claimants who are legal heirs of deceased have filed Claim Petitions claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in each of the Petition. Claimants have not entered appearance and their names were printed in the cause list. Pattammal, aged 69 years and her husband Rajagopalan, aged 75 years who travelled in the bus [TN-32-N 0579] sustained fatal injuries and died of injuries. As seen from Ex.P67-legal heir certificate, Claimants are son and daughter of deceased Pattammal and Rajagopalan. As is seen from Ex.P65, Pattammal was getting pension of Rs.1943/- and Rajagopalan was getting pension of Rs.4569/- per month. Pattammal was a retired teacher and Rajagopalan has retired from railway postal service. In her evidence, PW15-Malathi has stated that even though, her parents were aged, they were taking care of their children and that they were rendering valuable assistance and help in maintenance of house and bringing upon the children. PW15 has also stated that her parents were spending their pension amount for the family expenses and after the death of their parents, they are deprived of the pension as well as assistance which their parents were rendering.
9. In so far as, death of Pattammal, Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.65,000/- for loss of dependency. In so far as, loss of dependency, Claimants are grown up son and daughter and in our considered view, the amount of Rs.65,000/- awarded for loss of dependency appears to be on the higher side. Compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded for loss of dependency is reduced to Rs.25,000/-. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and compensation of Rs.5000/- awarded for funeral expenses being reasonable, the same is confirmed and the total compensation of Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Pattammal is confirmed.
10. In so far as, death of Rajagopalan, Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.1,40,000/- for loss of dependency. In so far as, loss of dependency, Claimants are grown up son and daughter and in our considered view, the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- awarded for loss of dependency appears to be on the higher side. Compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- awarded for loss of dependency is reduced to Rs.65,000/-. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for funeral expenses being reasonable, the same is confirmed and the total compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Rajagopalan is reduced to Rs.1,25,000/-.
11. C.M.A.Nos.120/2006 & 121/2006 [M.C.O.P.Nos.2654/2000 & 2655/2000]:
For the death of their mother Nagalakshmi, aged 72 years and father Venkatraman, aged 78 years, son and two daughters have filed Claim Petitions claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively. Claimants have not entered appearance. Their names were printed in the cause list. As seen from Ex.P73-legal heir certificate, Claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Nagalakshmi and Venkatraman. In Exs.P70 and P71-post mortem certificates, the age of the deceased is stated as 60 and 65 respectively whereas in the Petition, the age of Nagalakshmi and Venkatraman have been stated as 72 and 78 respectively which was taken by the Tribunal.
12. In her evidence, PW16-Vijayalakshmi has stated that Claimants are married and are settled. PW16 has further stated that because of the disability of her husband, she is living with her parents and that her parents were supporting her. PW16 has further stated that her father was contributing part of pension to the maintenance of her family and because of the death of her parents, they are deprived of the income and also other help.
13. For the death of Claimants' mother Nagalakshmi, Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.45,000/- for loss of dependency. In so far as, loss of dependency, Claimants are grown up son and daughters and in our considered view, the amount of Rs.45,000/- awarded for loss of dependency appears to be on the higher side. Compensation of Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for loss of dependency is reduced to Rs.25,000/-. Whereas compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- and the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for funeral expenses is maintained. Total compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Nagalakshmi is confirmed.
14. For the death of Claimants' father Venkatraman, Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.1,55,000/- for loss of dependency. Deceased Venkatraman was aged 78 years at the time of accident. In their old age, aged parents would be mostly dependent on the children. Having regard to the age of the deceased Venkatraman and other circumstances, compensation for loss of dependency awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- and the compensation for loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for funeral expenses is maintained and total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,40,000/-.
15. C.M.A.No.123/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.3023/2000]:
For the death of Babuchandran who travelled in the bus, wife, daughters and mother have filed Claim Petition, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. Ex.P7-legal heir certificate shows that Claimants are legal heirs of the deceased Babuchandran. In her evidence, PW3-Kalaiselvi has stated that her husband Babuchandran was doing brick works and was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. Deceased Babuchandran having proprietary concern 'Balaji Brick Industry and also partnership firm under the name and style 'Vadivambigai Brick Works'. From Form-19 filed for 'Balaji Brick Industry' by the deceased, it is seen that Babuchandran had done business for more than Rs.7,87,500/- in the preceding year for which he had paid the tax. As seen from Ex.P12-Statement, deceased was also doing business "Balaji Constructions". Ex.P13 is the deed of partnership from which it is seen that Babuchandran and 1st Claimant Kalaiselvi were partners of "Vadivambigai Brick Works" by investing Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively. From the documentary evidence produced by the Claimants, it is seen that Babuchandran was doing both Brick works as well as dealing in construction works under the name and style Balaji Constructions. From Exs.P14 to P17, it is seen that deceased has also paid sales tax. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, Tribunal has taken the contribution to the family at Rs.10,000/- per month.
16. At the time of accident, deceased Babuchandran was aged 42 years and Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. Choice of multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is confirmed. Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,000/- for transport charges, Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.30,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.12,00,000/- for loss of dependency and Rs.25,000/- for loss of expectation of life. Deceased Babuchandran being a businessman and was paying income tax, the quantum of compensation of Rs.12,88,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable warranting no interference and the same is confirmed.
17. C.M.A.No.133/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.1906/2001]:
For the death of Sadasivam, mother and father of Sadasivam have filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. From Ex.P20-legal heir certificate, it is seen that the Claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Sadasivam. Sadasivam has studied B.Pharm and he was a partner in the Partnership firm and running business 'Global Medipharma'. Exs.P21, 22 and 24 are the documents showing that Sadasivam studied B.Pharm and qualified pharmacist. As is seen from Exs.P23, P25 and P26, he has also taken training and previously working in another concern by name Tablets. He has studied Laboratory Analatical. The partnership firm 'Global Medipharma' has obtained licence in export of medicines and tablets.
18. In his evidence, PW5-Auditor has stated that at the time of accident, Sadasivam was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month and that he was getting not less than Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. Exs.P36 and P37 are the Audit Reports of 'Global Medipharma' prepared by its Auditors. Based upon the oral evidence of PW4 and PW5 and Exs.P36 and P37 and keeping in view the future prospects of the deceased, Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. Even though, Tribunal has observed that deceased has spent 1/3rd for personal expenses, Tribunal has not made any specific deduction for personal expenses and as such taken the income at Rs.10,000/- per moth.
19. While taking the income of Rs.10,000/- per month, Tribunal ought to have made 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses. Deducting Rs.2,500/- per month for personal expenses, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.7,500/- per month and the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.90,000/- [Rs.7500/- x 12 = Rs.90,000/-].
20. Deceased Sadasivam was aged 31 years at the time of accident and based upon age of the deceased, Tribunal has adopted multiplier 11.25. As held by the Supreme Court in 2008 AIR SCW 1238 [Ramesh Singh v. Satbir Singh], choice of multiplier would depend upon the age of the deceased or that of the Claimant whichever is higher. In the instant case, parents of deceased being Claimants, choice of multiplier is depends upon the age of the Claimants and while so, Tribunal was not justified in adopting multiplier 11.25, based upon the age of deceased.
21. From the materials on record, it is seen that 1st Claimant-mother is aged 53 years and the proper multiplier is 11. The 2nd Claimant-father is aged 63 years and the proper multiplier is 5. Taking average of both [11 +5 / 2], we deem it proper to adopt the multiplier 8. The total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.7,20,000/- [Rs.90,000/- x 8 = Rs.7,20,000/-]. For conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of expectation of life, Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- for transportation and funeral expenses being reasonable, the same are confirmed. Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of love and affection and Rs.30,000/- is awarded as compensation for loss of love and affection. In modification, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.8,00,000/- as under:-
Loss of pecuniary benefits : Rs. 7,20,000.00
Loss of expectation of life : Rs. 10,000.00
Mental agony : Rs. 20,000.00
Transportation and funeral
expenses : Rs. 20,000.00
Loss of love and affection : Rs. 30,000.00
------------------
Total : Rs. 8,00,000.00
——————
22. C.M.A.No.135/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.5506/2001]:
For the death of Sundaramoorthy, aged 47 years, wife and sons have filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. As seen from Ex.P60-legal heir certificate, Claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Sundaramoorthy. In Ex.P58-post mortem certificate, the age of the deceased is stated as 45 whereas in her evidence, PW14 wife of deceased has stated that at the time of accident, her husband was aged 47 years which was taken by the Tribunal.
23. In her evidence, PW14-Rajeswari has stated that her husband Sundaramoorthy was working as Manager in “Vadivambigai Brick Works and was earning Rs.5000/- per month. In his evidence, PW17-Krishnamurthy who is the Proprietor of “Vadivambigai Brick Works” has stated that deceased Sundaramoorthy was working as Manager in his Brick company and he was paid monthly salary of Rs.4500/-. Ex.P74 is the salary certificate issued by PW17. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.4,75,000/- [Rs.3000 x 12 x 13.19 = Rs.4,75,000/-]. Choice of multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is confirmed. Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.20,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses being reasonable, the same is confirmed. The quantum of compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same is confirmed.
PERSONAL INJURY CASES:
24. In so far as, personal injury cases, Tribunal has awarded compensation under two heads “compensation for permanent disability as well as compensation for loss of earning power”. In 2006 ACJ 2703 [Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Ahmed Thambi and others], First Bench of this Court has considered the principles of assessment of compensation for permanent disability and on account of earning capacity. Holding that loss of earning capacity and compensation for permanent disability need not be separately assessed. To ensure clarity and transparency in the award of damages, First Bench of this Court has laid down guidelines and also enumerated various heads under which the compensation is to be itemised.
“19. In order to avoid any future confusion and to bring more clarity and transparency in the award of damages, it is necessary that the tribunal, while awarding damages, should itemise the award under each of the head namely, pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses. In the non-pecuniary losses the tribunal shall consider a) pain and suffering, b) loss of amenity, c) loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress, etc; d) loss of prospect of marriage and under the head pecuniary loses, the tribunal shall consider loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings as one component apart from medical and other expenses and loss of earning, if any from the date of accident till the date of trial. When loss of earning capacity is compensated as also the non-pecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be separately itemised.”
25. We have taken all personal injury cases together [C.M.A.Nos.124 to 134/2006]. Tribunal awarded separate compensation for ‘permanent disability’ and ‘loss of earning power’. As held by the Full Bench of this Court, there cannot be an award of two separate heads ‘compensation for permanent disability’ and ‘compensation for loss of earning power’. However, in all personal injury cases, we have taken the compensation for ‘permanent disability’ and ‘loss of earning power’ together to consider the reasonableness of the quantum of compensation.
26. C.M.A.No.124/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.3205/2000]:
In his evidence, PW2-Karuppiah has stated that in the accident he sustained fracture of left hand and fracture of 2nd and 3rd ribs and also sustained head injuries. After the accident, the Claimant has taken treatment in Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital where he was treated as out-patient. Ex.P2 is the Medical O.P. Chit. Claimant Karuppiah, aged 36 years has been working as Mason and was earning Rs.4000/- per month. In his evidence, PW2 has stated that because of injuries, he is not in a position to work and unable to lift the weight in his left hand. PW19-Dr.Thiagarajan has stated that PW2 sustained fracture of left hand humerus and fracture of 2nd and 3rd ribs. He has further stated that the muscles were tightened and Claimant is not in a position to lift his left hand. After examining the Claimant, PW19 assessed the total disability at 35%. Ex.P77 is the disability certificate. Based upon oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.16,000/- for loss of income, Rs.1000/- for transport charges, Rs.1500/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.225/- for medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.10,000/- for loss of earning power. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of earning power is added to the compensation for permanent disability and the total compensation of Rs.68,725/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
27. C.M.A.No.125/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.3964/2000]:
In his evidence, Claimant Gopal [PW1] has stated that in the accident he sustained fracture of left shoulder and also sustained head injuries. After the accident, Claimant has taken treatment in Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital from 10.04.2000 to 12.4.2000 and Ex.P1 is the Accident Register. Claimant Gopal, aged 22 years has been working as Electrician. In his evidence PW1 has stated that because of head injuries, he is not in a position to work and carry the weight in his head. PW19-Dr.Thiagarajan has stated that PW1 sustained fracture of left shoulder, concussion brain and contusion left knee. PW19 has further stated that the neck was swollen and the muscles were tightened and Claimant is not in a position to lift his left hand. After examining the Claimant, PW19 issued Ex.P79-disability certificate assessing the permanent disability at 40%. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,000/- for loss of income, Rs.1000/- for transport charges, Rs.1500/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.10,000/- for loss of earning power. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of earning power is added to the compensation for permanent disability and the total compensation of Rs.58,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
28. C.M.A.No.126/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.3965/2000]:
In his evidence, PW6-Anbu has stated that in the accident he sustained fracture of nasal bone, fracture of forearm. After the accident, the Claimant had taken treatment in Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital from 10.04.2000 to 12.04.2000 and Ex.P39 is the discharge summary. Claimant Anbu, aged 40 years has been working as Electrician and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. In his evidence, PW6 has stated that because of injuries, he is not in a position to work and unable to walk as early and he often receiving headache. PW19-Dr.Thiagarajan has stated that PW6-Anbu sustained fracture of nasal bone and fracture of forearm. After examining the Claimant, PW19 issued Ex.P81-disability certificate assessing the permanent disability at 35%. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,000/- for loss of income, Rs.1000/- for transport charges, Rs.1500/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.10,000/- for loss of earning power. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of earning power is added to the compensation for permanent disability and the total compensation of Rs.61,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
29. C.M.A.No.127/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.4028/2000]:
In his evidence, Claimant Ravi [PW7] has stated that in the accident he sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm, fracture of right shoulder and also sustained multiple injuries. After the accident, Claimant has taken treatment in Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital from 10.04.2000 to 12.04.2000 and Ex.P40 is the discharge summary. Claimant Ravi, aged 24 years has been working as Electrician and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. In his evidence, PW7 has stated that after the accident, he is not in a position to work. PW19-Dr.Thiagarajan has stated that PW6 sustained fracture of forearm and fracture of right clavicle. He has further stated that the muscles were tightened and the Claimant is not in a position to lift his left forearm and unable to work in his left hand. After examining the Claimant, PW19 assessed the permanent disability at 40%. Ex.P83 is the disability certificate. Based upon the oral evidence of PW7 and PW19 and Ex.P40 and P83, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.9,000/- for loss of income, Rs.1000/- for transport charges, Rs.1500/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.35,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.10,000/- for loss of earning power. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of earning power is added to the compensation for permanent disability and the total compensation of Rs.66,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
30. C.M.A.No.128/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.4029/2000]:
In his evidence, Claimant Kannan [PW8] has stated that in the accident he sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm, fracture of left shoulder and also sustained multiple injuries. After the accident, Claimant has taken treatment in Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital from 10.04.2000 to 14.04.2000 and Ex.P41 is the discharge summary. Claimant Kannan, aged 52 years has been working as Carpenter and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. In his evidence, PW8 has stated that after the accident, he is not in a position to work and he often having pain in his left hand. PW19-Dr.Thiagarajan has stated that PW8 sustained fracture in his forearm and right clavicle. He has further stated that the muscles were tightened and the Claimant is not in a position to lift articles and is unable to raise his left hand and unable to do carpentry work. After examining the Claimant, PW19 assessed the total disability at 45%. Ex.P84 is the disability certificate. Based upon the oral evidence of PW8 and PW19 and Ex.P41 and P84, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for loss of income, Rs.1000/- for transport charges, Rs.1500/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.40,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.10,000/- for loss of earning power. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of earning power is added to the compensation for permanent disability and the total compensation of Rs.72,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
31. C.M.A.No.129/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.4030/2000]:
In his evidence, PW9-Ravi has stated that in the accident he sustained fracture of right femur and contusion over forehead and chest and also sustained multiple injuries. After the accident, Claimant has taken treatment in Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital from 10.04.2000 to 12.04.2000 and Ex.P43 is the discharge summary. Claimant Ravi, aged 24 years has been working as Electrician and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. In his evidence, PW9 has stated that after the accident, he is not in a position to work and also unable to stand for long hours. In his evidence, PW19-Dr.Thiagarajan has stated that PW9 sustained fracture of right femur and contusion over forehead and chest. He has further stated that the muscles were tightened and the Claimant is not in a position to squat. After examining the Claimant, PW19 assessed the total disability at 30%. Ex.P86 is the disability certificate. Based upon the oral evidence of PW9 and PW19 and Ex.P43 and P86, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.9,000/- for loss of income, Rs.1000/- for transport charges, Rs.1500/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.7,500/- for pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.10,000/- for loss of earning power. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of earning power is added to the compensation for permanent disability and the total compensation of Rs.54,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
32. C.M.A.No.130/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.4031/2000]:
In his evidence, Claimant Prabakaran [PW11] has stated that in the accident he sustained fracture of right clavicle and fracture of right zycoma and laceration over lip. After the accident, Claimant has taken treatment in Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital from 10.04.2000 to 11.04.2000 and Ex.P50 is the discharge summary. Claimant Prabakaran, aged 26 years has been working as Electrician and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. In his evidence, PW11 has stated that after the accident, he is not in a position to do his Electrician work and he often receiving headache. PW19-Dr.Thiagarajan has stated that PW11 sustained right clavicle fracture and zycoma fracture. He has further stated that the muscles were tightened and the Claimant is not in a position to lift his right hand. After examining the Claimant, PW19 assessed the total disability at 45%. Ex.P88 is the disability certificate. Based upon the oral evidence of PW11 and PW19 and Ex.P50 and P88, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.9,000/- for loss of income, Rs.1000/- for transport charges, Rs.1500/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.635/- for medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.10,000/- for loss of earning power. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of earning power is added to the compensation for permanent disability and the total compensation of Rs.62,150/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
33. C.M.A.No.131/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.4032/2000]:
In his evidence, PW12-Selvaraj has stated that in the accident he sustained fracture of forehead, fracture of right humerus and also sustained multiple injuries. After the accident, Claimant has taken treatment in Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital from 10.04.2000 to 13.04.2000 and Ex.P54 is the discharge summary. Claimant Selvaraj, aged 28 years has been working as Painter and was earning Rs.4000/- per month. In his evidence, PW12 has stated that after the accident, he is not in a position to do his painting work. PW19-Dr.Thiagarajan has stated that PW12 sustained fissure fracture of forehead, right humerus fracture. He has further stated that the muscles were tightened and the Claimant is not in a position to lift his right hand and unable to work in his right hand. After examining the Claimant, PW19 assessed the total disability at 35%. Ex.P90 is the disability certificate. Based upon the oral evidence of PW12 and PW19 and Ex.P54 and P90, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/- for loss of income, Rs.1000/- for transport charges, Rs.1500/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.10,000/- for loss of earning power. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded for loss of earning power is added to the compensation for permanent disability and the total compensation of Rs.60,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
34. C.M.A.No.132/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.4033/2000]:-
In his evidence, Claimant Vijayalakshmi [PW13] has stated that in the accident she sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of left femur with bimalleolus left leg and also sustained multiple injuries. After the accident, Claimant has taken treatment in Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital from 10.04.2000 to 18.04.2000 and Ex.P55 is the discharge summary. Claimant Vijayalakshmi, aged 30 years has been working as Tailor and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. In her evidence, PW13 has stated that after the accident, she is not in a position to do her tailor work. PW19-Dr.Thiagarajan has stated that PW13 sustained right tibia fracture and fracture over left leg. He has further stated that the muscles were tightened and the Claimant is not in a position to sit or squat. After examining the Claimant, PW19 assessed the total disability at 45%. Ex.P92 is the disability certificate. Based upon the oral evidence of PW13 and PW19 and Ex.P55 and P92, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.12,000/- for loss of income, Rs.1000/- for transport charges, Rs.1500/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for the expenses and loss of income for nursing care, Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.45,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.20,000/- for loss of earning power. Compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded for loss of earning power is added to the compensation for permanent disability and the total compensation of Rs.1,04,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
35. C.M.A.No.134/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.5279/2001]:-
In his evidence, Claimant Neelachi [PW10] has stated that in the accident she sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of left forearm and also sustained multiple injuries. After the accident, Claimant has taken treatment in Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital from 10.04.2000 to 09.05.2000 and thereafter in Nichani Hospital from 09.05.2000 to 08.06.2000 and Ex.P45 is the wound certificate. Claimant Neelachi, aged 45 years has been working as Tailor and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. In her evidence, PW10 has stated that after the accident, she is not in a position to work. PW18-Dr.Saichandran has stated that PW10 sustained fracture of left hand and fracture of right leg. He has further stated that the muscles were tightened and plates were insitu. PW18 further stated that the Claimant is not in a position to squat his right leg. After examining the Claimant, PW18 assessed the total disability at 50%. Ex.P75 is the disability certificate. Based upon the oral evidence of PW10 and PW18 and Ex.P45 and P75, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for loss of income, Rs.3000/- for transport charges, Rs.4000/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.80,500/- for medical bills, Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.15,000/- for loss of earning power. Compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded for loss of earning power is added to the compensation for permanent disability and the total compensation of Rs.1,77,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
36. In all the cases, Tribunal has ordered that Appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation along with accrued interest at the rate of 9% p.a. In Rajapriya’s case [(2005) 6 SCC 236], the Supreme Court has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Following the consistent view of the Supreme Court, interest awarded at the rate of 9% p.a. by the Tribunal is reduced to 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of Claim Petition till the date of deposit. The compensation awarded has to be apportioned on the ratio of 50% : 50% by the Appellant-Insurance Company and Respondent-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation respectively.
37. C.M.A.Nos.119/2006, 120/2006, 123/2006 and 135/2006:- In the result, the compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.Nos.2653/2000, 2654/2000, 3023/2000 and 5506/2001 dated 22.11.2004 is confirmed and interest is reduced to 7.5% p.a. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is ordered to be apportioned in the ratio of 50% : 50% between the Appellant-Insurance Company and Respondent-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed.
C.M.A.Nos.121/2006, 122/2006, 133/2006:- In the result, the compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.2655/2000 is reduced to Rs.1,40,000/-. Compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.2656/2000 is reduced to Rs.1,25,000/- and the compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.1906/2001 is reduced to Rs.8,00,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The modified compensation is ordered to be apportioned in the ratio of 50% : 50% between the Appellant-Insurance Company and Respondent-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed.
C.M.A.Nos.124/2006, 125/2006, 126/2006, 127/2006, 128/2006,129/2006, 130/2006, 131/2006, 132/2006 and 134/2006:- In the result, the compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.Nos.3205/2000,3964/2000,3965/2000,4028/2000,4029/20004030/2000, 4031/2000, 4032/2000, 4033/200 and 5279/2001 are confirmed and interest is reduced to 7.5% p.a. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is ordered to be apportioned in the ratio of 50% : 50% between the Appellant-Insurance Company and Respondent-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed.
It is stated that in all the Appeals, excepting C.M.A.Nos.123 and 135/2006, Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited 50% of compensation amount along with accrued interest at the rate of 9% p.a. If any of the Claimants have not withdrawn the amount so deposited by the Appellant-Insurance Company, they are permitted to withdraw the compensation deposited by the Appellant- Insurance Company along with entire interest. We make it clear that Appellant-Insurance Company may not recover the difference in the amount on account of the difference in the rate of interest.
Respondent-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is directed to deposit its share of compensation i.e. 50% payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.
It is also stated that Appellant-Insurance Company has already deposited the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with accrued interest in C.M.A.Nos.123 and 135/2006. Since, liability is to be apportioned between the Appellant-Insurance Company and Respondent-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw 50% of compensation so deposited along with accrued interest in C.M.A.Nos.123 and 135/2006. Claimants in C.M.A.Nos.123 and 135/2006 are permitted to withdraw the compensation of 50% deposited by the Appellant-Insurance Company along with accrued interest.
In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in these C.M.As. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.
Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation are entitled to separate fees in each of the appeal.
bbr
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
V Judge, Small Causes Court,
Chennai