IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.2221 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 The Divisional Manager The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Cuddalore .. Appellant Vs 1.Sankar 2.T.Velmurugan .. Respondents (R2 Ex-parte) Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree, dated 16.11.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.255 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam. For appellant : Mr.D.Venugopal For respondents : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, for R1 . . . . . . J U D G M E N T
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 16.11.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.255 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam, awarding a compensation of Rs.7,46,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation.
2.Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent, The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Cuddalore, has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree.
3.The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner, Sankar, was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, by working as a Crane Operator in Sri Lakshmi Crane Services, Pondy. On 21.08.2003, at about 18.15 hrs, the petitioner after completion of crane operation work at Kothavasals, was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.PYQ 4601, from Kothavasal to Ammayappan, on the extreme left side of Nagapattinam Tanjore highways. At that time, the first respondent’s vehicle, bearing registration No.PY02 B9007, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As the van driver was unable to control the vehicle, the van capsized, and in the accident, the petitioner was thrown away along with his motorcycle. The petitioner sustained multiple fracture in his right leg and dislocation of right hand and injuries all over his body. The motorcycle was damaged extensively. The petitioner was immediately taken to Thiruvarur Government Hospital and later on shifted to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry. Now, the petitioner is undergoing treatment at Government General Hospital, Chennai. At Government General Hospital, Chennai, an operation was carried out on his right leg and steel rods were inserted. He is not able to move his right hand and it is paralysed.
4.The petitioner’s family consists of his wife, two children and his aged parents. The petitioner is the only breadwinner in his family. Even after operation, he would not be in a position to do his previous work ie.crane operation.
5.The accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent’s vehicle driver. As the first respondent’s vehicle is insured with the second respondent Insurance Company, both the respondents are jointly liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and costs, under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6.The first respondent was called absent and so was set ex-parte.
7.The second respondent, in his Counter, has resisted the claim stating that the age, income and occupation of the petitioner has to be proved and that the nature of injuries sustained by him, the disability caused to him and the period of treatment should also be proved. Further, the second respondent has denied the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim. It was submitted that the petitioner was riding his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the accident. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner should prove that the driver of the first respondent’s vehicle had a valid driving licence at the time of accident and that the vehicle was plying with valid permit and RC at the time of the accident. It has also been submitted that as the owner of the motorcycle and its insurer was not added as a necessary party in the claim, the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was also submitted that as the claim was excessive it has to be dismissed with costs.
8.In the additional written statement filed by the second respondent, it was submitted that the petitioner had failed to produce accident register at the time of filing the petition or at the time of commencement of trial. It was submitted that as per the JIPMER Hospital, medicolegal examination report obtained by the Insurance Company’s Investigator, the petitioner was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and at that time a child had crossed the road and the petitioner on seeing the child, suddenly applied brake and turned towards the right side and fell down. The first respondent’s vehicle driver, who was driving his van by following traffic rules and regulations, on seeing the motorcycle being turned towards the van, applied brakes and turned towards the extreme left side, in order to avert a major accident, as a result of which, the van capsized. So, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner cannot claim compensation for his negligence. Hence, it was prayed that the claim should be dismissed.
9.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely:
(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver of the first respondent?
(ii) Whether the first and second respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner in this petition?
(iii)How much compensation, is the petitioner entitled to get?
10.On the petitioner’s side, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and 17 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A17. On the respondents’ side, three witnesses were examined as RW1 to RW3 and three documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B3.
11.The petitioner, Sankar, was examined as PW2. He deposed in his evidence that on the evening of 21.08.2003, he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.PYQ 4401 towards Ammayappan Village on the Tanjore to Thiruvarur highway. He has also stated that when he was proceeding near Koradacheri on the left side of the road, with moderate speed, a van bearing registration No.PY02 B9007, which was driven by its driver from the opposite direction, had dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner, while overtaking another van, which was going ahead and caused the accident. He has denied inhis cross-examination, the suggestion put up by the counsel for the second respondent that as the child suddenly crossed the road in the place of occurrence, he has swerved his motorcycle to the extreme right side of the road and that is why he had dashed against the van and caused the accident. The PW1 has also stated that after dashing against him, the van had capsized on the main road due to over speed. He has also denied the suggestion that the van was driven by its driver on the extreme left side of the road.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued that as per the entries in Ex.A12, the Outpatient record, issued by the JIPMER Hospital, Pondy, the accident had occurred when the petitioner was driving a bike and fell down, when he applied brakes, on seeing a child crossing the road at Thiruvarur and so the accident has not occurred as stated by the PW1, Sankar. The Tribunal were not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent as PW1, Sankar has stated in his evidence that immediately after the accident he lost his consciousness. He has also stated that he did not even known in which, hospital, he was admitted. He has also stated in his re-examination that after the accident, he was unconscious for nearly one week. On perusal of the Ex.A12, it is seen that the Doctor has made an endorsement that the petitioner was brought by one Prakash, the brother of the petitioner and hence the Tribunal opined that his brother could have given by the details regarding the accident. As such, the Tribunal did not accept the contention that by virtue of the entry in the records in JIPMER Hospital, Pondy, the accident has not occurred as stated by the PW1, Sankar.
13.RW1, Ganesan, Record Clerk of Government Head Quarters Hospital, Thiruvarur has submitted Ex.B1, Accident Register, wherein it is seen that the Doctor has made an endorsement that “said to have sustained injuries in a RTA when his bike dashed with a van near Kothavasal in Mugandanur on 21.08.2003”. But this sentence was not complete and some words were missing. On scrutiny of Ex.A16, Accident Register No.3421400 of one Rosi (I.P.No.9517), wherein it is stated that the said Rosi sustained injuries in a RTA when he was riding in a van, which had dashed against a bike and caused the accident, it is clear that in the same accident, some other persons, travelling in the van had also sustained injuries.
14.RW2, Ponnaiyan, Head Constable, Koradacheri Police Station, has brought the case file in Crime No.194/2003, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. He has also stated that as per the records, the accident occurred on 21.08.2003, at about 18.50 hrs. and information given at about 22 hrs. and the driver of the van bearing registration No.PY02 B9007 is shown as the accused. He has also stated that after due investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the van driver. He has also admitted that in the same accident, the PW1, Sankar, one Chitra, Rosi and Jaya had also sustained injuries and he has clarified that except PW1, Sankar, the other injured persons were the passengers, who had travelled in the van and also clarified the doubts raised in Ex.B1, Accident Register.
15.RW3, Ganesan, Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvarur, was examined before this Court. On perusal of Ex.B3, Accident Register original, it is seen that the Doctor has made the following entries “said to have sustained injuries in the RTA when his bike dashed with a known van near Kothavasal Mugunthanur at 6.15 p.m. on 21.08.2003”. This fact is also confirmed by Ex.A17, Accident Register, which was issued to another injured Jaya on the same date. On perusal of the same, the Doctor has made the following endorsements “alleged to have sustained injuries in the RTA, while she was traveling in a van, which had dashed with a known bike on 6.15 p.m. on 21.08.2003 near Kothavasal to Mugunthanur”. So it is clear that this accident has not occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner Sankar, but because of the negligent act of the driver of the first respondent’s van.
16.On perusal of Ex.A1, the copy of the FIR, registered by the Police, it is seen that one Kumar has lodged the complaint on 21.08.2003, at about 22.00 hrs and one Shanmuganathan, driver of the Mahindra van bearing registration No.PY02 B9007, is shown as the accused. On going through the contents of the complaint, it is seen that the complainant Kumar has stated the same version regarding the manner of accident, as deposed by the PW1, before the Tribunal. More over, it is to be noted that S.I.of Police, who went to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Thiruvarur to record the statement of Kumar has mentioned in the FIR that the injured Sankar, was in an unconscious stage in the hospital and that is why he has obtained FIR from Kumar, who was the eyewitness to the occurrence.
17.On scrutiny of Exs.A2 and A3, the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report of the first respondent’s van and PW1’s vehicle respectively, it is seen that the said van did not have any mechanical defect, but that the motorcycle could not be tested as it had been completely damaged. As no other evidence or document were placed before the Tribunal to contradict the evidence given by the PW1 and the earlier complaint lodged by Kumar, the Tribunal held that the accident had been caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent’s van.
18.The Insurance Policy copy of the first respondent’s vehicle was neither submitted by the PW1 nor by the second respondent. But, as the second respondent has not contended that the first respondent’s van has not been insured with him, the Tribunal held that the first respondent’s van was insured with the second respondent Insurance Company on the date of accident. As such, the Tribunal held the first and second respondents, who are the owner and the insurer of the said van respectively, liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
19.It is seen, on scrutiny of Ex.A5, the copy of the driving licence issued to PW1, that the date of birth of PW1 has been given as 16.07.1969. Hence, the Tribunal held the age of the PW1 as 34 years at the time of accident.
20.The PW1 has stated in his evidence that he was working as a Crane Operator in Sri Lakshmi Crane Services, Pondy and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and that in addition, he was getting a daily batta of Rs.100/- to Rs.150/-. But, he has not produced any documentary proof in support of this. On perusal of Ex.A5, driving licence, it is clear that the petitioner was working as a crane operator. Because he was authorised to drive transport vehicles also and HGV vehicles. As such, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was earning not less than Rs.4,000/- per month and his income was therefore fixed at Rs.4,000/-. The PW1, Sankar, has stated in his evidence that due to the accident, he sustained crush injury on his right leg below the knee and he sustained injuries on his right shoulder. He has also stated that nerves in the brain has been affected and as a result, his right hand is not fully functional. The petitioner was initially admitted at Tanjore Medical College Hospital, Tanjore, where blood transfusion was given and then admitted in JIPMER Hospital, on 22.08.2003. As he had not regained consciousness here also, he was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Chennai, on23.08.2003 and took treatment, as inpatient for a period of four months. Initially, a rod was inserted in his right leg after an operation. After two months, another operation was conducted and the bone in the right leg was removed and muscle transplantation was done to his right leg from his left leg. After three months, after this operation, there was a tremer on his right leg, which had been shortened. The petitioner took treatment at PIMS Hospital, Kalapet, for 20 days. At first, bone grafting operation was done on his right leg by taking a bone from his left leg and an iron rod was also fixed. As puss formed on his right leg, he was again operated upon and discharged. After the treatment, the petitioner is totally unable to walk, sit and he is able to only lie on the bed. In support of his evidence,he has marked Exs.A4, A6, A7, A8 and A9, medical records, along with Exs.A10 and A11, which are the receipts for payment and made for medical treatment.
21.Ex.B1, Accident Register and Ex.B2, Medicolegal Opinion, from where marked through RW1 Ganesan. Ex.B3 was marked through RW3, Ganesan. On perusal of Exs.B1 and B3, Accident Registers, it is seen that the Doctor at Government Head Quarters Hospital, Tiruvarur, has found fracture of right leg below knee exposing muscles and bones and lacerated injury on the right side and he was referred to higher institutions. On perusal of Ex.B2, Medicolegal opinion form issued in the Tanjore Medical College Hospital, Tanjore, it is seen that the Doctor has found fracture of both bones in his right leg and fracture of right shoulder. So, he has given his opinion, stating that the above injuries are grievious in nature. On perusal of Ex.A12, O.P.Record issued in the JIPMER Hospital, Pondy, it is seen that the Doctor has found fracture in his right leg. On perusal of Ex.A4, Discharge Summary issued in Government General Hospital, Chennai, it is seen that the petitioner was admitted on 23.08.2003 and he was discharged on 03.01.2004 and that he had received treatment for the fracture on his right leg. On perusal of Ex.A3, Case Sheet issued in the same hospital, it is seen that the petitioner has undergone operation and was given treatment for a long period. On perusal of Ex.A6, Discharge Summary issued in the PIMS Hospital, it is seen that he was admitted on 15.07.2004 and discharged on 19.07.2004and surgery was done on 15.07.2004. On perusal of Ex.A7, Discharge Summary issued in the same hospital, it is seen that the petitioner was admitted on 12.08.2004 and was discharged on 21.09.2004 and surgery was conducted on 16.08.2004. On perusal of Ex.A8, Discharge Summary issued in the same hospital, it is seen that the petitioner was admitted on 05.10.2004 and was discharged on 08.11.2004 and surgery was conducted on 18.10.2004. On perusal of Ex.A9, Discharge Summary issued in the same hospital, it is seen that the petitioner was admitted on 18.01.2005 and was discharged on 16.02.2005 and that surgery was done on 20.01.2005. So, it is clear that the petitioner sustained fracture injury in this accident and that he was unable to move his right hand and he is not able to walk, sit and work as earlier.
22.To ascertain the disability caused due to the above fracture, Dr.Sekar was examined as PW2, before this Tribunal. He has stated that he has examined the petitioner on 01.08.2005 for the injuries sustained by him in the RTA that occurred on 21.08.2003. On examination of the petitioner and the medical records, he has found that the petitioner was helped by others to bring him to the consulting room; that a discharging sinus was present on the right leg; deformity of the right leg; knee joint flexion restricted by 20 degrees; Ankle joint/dorsi flexion restricted by 10 degrees; power of extension and convertion 4/5; the petitioner found difficulties in squatting, in climbing upstairs, in walking over the plains; limb length discrepancy 10 c.m. Left leg measures 40 cms., right leg measures 30 cms.; pain on prolonged standing and walking; on his advise, Ex.A14 series X’rays were taken; X’ray to his right leg revealed tibular grafting with loss of bone and arthritic changes.
23.The petitioner’s right arm abducted wrist stiffness; wasting of muscles over the deltoid supraspinatus and infra spinatus; movements on shoulder flexion and extension restricted by 80 degrees; abduction and adduction restricted by 70 degrees; rotation restricted by 60 degrees; elbow flexion and extension restricted by 40 degrees; wrist movements 10 degrees; power of wrist 1/5; power of elbow 2/5; power of shoulder 3/5, the petitioner was unable to lift weight, unable to eat as per Indian style; unable to drink water/unable to comb hair, opposition of fingers lost, hook grasp lost; grip strength reduced. The PW2, Sekar, has issued Ex.A15, Disability Certificate combining both the upper arm and lower limb as 76% stating that the petitioner has 76% permanent disability.
24.The Tribunal on considering that the petitioner had sustained extensive fracture injuries on his right leg and injuries on other parts of the body, granted an award of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner under the head of pain and suffering. The Tribunal, was of the opinion that as the petitioner was not able to sit, stand, walk and work, his earning power has completely vanished. To assess his future loss of income, the Tribunal, adopting a multiplier of 17 and taking the annual income of the petitioner as Rs.48,000/- assessed the total loss of his future income as Rs.8,16,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd share from this for the personal expenses of the petitioner the loss of his future income was computed as Rs.5,44,000/- and accordingly, the Tribunal awarded this sum as compensation under the head of loss of future income. The Tribunal further granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner for loss of amenities and another sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of marital pleasure.
25.The Tribunal, on considering that the petitioner has lost his earnings during the period of treatment ie. from 22.08.2003 to 16.02.2005 ie. for a period of 1 = years, awarded a sum of Rs.72,000/- to the petitioner under the head of loss of earning during a period of treatment. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of transport expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of nutrition, the Tribunal, on considering Exs.A10 and Exs.A11, which are series of medical receipts awarded a compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner under the head of medical expenses.
26.In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,46,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the first and second respondents to jointly or severally deposit the above said award together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.255 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam, within a period of two months from the date of its Order. Further, after such deposit was made, the award was to be invested in a nationalised bank as to for a period of three years. The excess Court fee paid by the petitioner was to be refunded to him. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.14,500/- and the respondents were directed to pay the cost of Rs.21,371.50 to the petitioner.
27.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal, after having found that as per the endorsement made in Ex.A17, Accident Register issued in the Government Hospital, Thiruvarur to one Jaya and confirmed the same, ought to have held that the first respondent herein was also equally responsible for the accident that occurred on the relevant date. It has also been contended that the learned Judge of the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the documentary evidence namely Exs.B1 to B3 produced by the appellant herein through RW1 to RW3 relating to the accident said to have taken place on the relevant date was only due to the composite negligence of the rider of motorcycle (first respondent) herein and also the driver of the van of the second respondent herein. It has been contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the degree of negligence against the rider of the motorcycle at 50%, when he was riding the motorcycle in a National Highways road and could have avoided the said accident, if he had ridden the motorcycle cautiously. It has also been contended that the annual income of Rs.48,000/- fixed as the first respondent’s income is not based on any documentary evidence and that the age of the first respondent has also been fixed as 34 based only on document marked as Ex.A5, the driving licence of the first respondent. It has also been contended that a multiplier of 12 should have been fixed in assessment of compensation as per the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2007(1) TN MAC Page 19, in which, the victim was aged about 37 years. It has further been pointed out that as the first respondent did not suffer any schedule injuries, a multiplier of 10 alone should have been adopted as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in 2005(1) CTC Page 38. It was also contended that the percentage of disability assessed as 76% by PW2 was excessive and that the PW2, admittedly did not issue any Certificate to assess any percentage of loss of earning power of the first respondent herein. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also pointed out that even for amputation of one lower limb, the loss of earning capacity fixed under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 was only 50%.
28.As such, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the entire amount of compensation of Rs.7,46,000/- awarded under several heads are liable to be scaled down as they are excessive. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has cited a Judgement made in 2005(1) TN MAC 87 (DB), United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Tiruchengode Vs. Veluchamy and another, the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
“MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Second Schedule, Clauses 5 & 1 Disability in non-fatal accidents Compensation Determination As per sub-clauses (a) & (b) of Cl.5, in case of permanent total disablement or partial disablement, Court can arrive at an amount payable by multiplying annual loss of income by multiplier applicable to age on date of determining Compensation Proper multiplier to be applied, prescribed in Clause 1 of IInd Schedule Percentage of loss of earning capacity to be arrived at as per Schedule I under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM Bodily Injury Compensation Assessment Relevant circumstances, evidence and legal principles governing quantification of compensation to be taken into account by Courts/Tribunal Issue of awarding compensation to be approached on larger perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience Technicalities in decision making to be eschewed Tribunals/Courts should realize that possession of one’s own body is first and most valuable of all human rights Bodily injury to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages Deprivation sustained as a consequence of bodily injuries may bring with it consequences viz. (i) loss of earning & earning capacity (ii) expenses to pay others for what otherwise he would do for himself, and (iii) loss or diminution in full pleasures and joys of living Amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries Therefore, while considering deprivation, Tribunal/Courts should have due regard to gravity and degree of deprivation as well as degree of awareness of deprivation in awarding damages in personal injury, compensation awarded should be substantial and not merely token damages General principle that Court should award to injured such a sum of money as will put him in same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries, should govern assessment But it is manifest that no award of money can possibly compensate an injured man and renew a shattered human frame Injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering, (2) for loss of amenities, (3) shortened expectation of life, (4) loss of earning and/or loss of earning capacity, & (5) medical treatment and other special damages Court while computing damages for loss of organs or physical injury does not value a limb or eye in isolation, but only values totality of harm which loss has entailed loss of amenities of life and infliction of pain and suffering, the loss of good things of life, joys of life and positive infliction of pain and distress.”
29.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs.72,000/- as compensation for loss of earning during the period of treatment.
30.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that due to the accident, the petitioner is in a vegetative state. The Doctor’s evidence clearly proves that the petitioner’s right leg has been deformed, knee joint fluctuation restricted by 20 degrees and as such he is unable to do any work. The petitioner has difficulty in squatting, climbing upstairs, in walking over the plains and that he has a limb leg discrepancy as 10 cms.; that his left leg measures 40 cms and his right leg measures 30 cms. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that due to the accident, the petitioner has lost muscles in vital areas and in the result has reduced muscle strength. Further, the claimant had undergone a number of surgeries over a long period of treatment. Further, muscle transplantation has been done in the right leg of the claimant by removing muscles in his left leg. His right leg, in spite of treatment, has been shortened by 10 cms. The claimant has suffered a total loss of functioning of the vital parts of his body and as such is not able to do any work as he used to do before the accident. At the time of accident, the claimant was 32 years old and was a crane operator. After the accident, he is unable to do his work as a crane operation. He is only breadwinner of his family and due to this accident his avocation has been totally affected.
31.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either sides, and scrutiny of the findings of the Tribunal, this Court’s view is that the Tribunal has arrived at a proper conclusion regarding the two issues involved namely negligence and liability and as such, the Tribunal has assessed the compensation as below:
1. For loss of income due to permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,44,000/-. This Court finds the award under this head is pertinent, considering the nature of injuries, mode of treatment and the long duration of treatment undergone by the petitioner, surgeries conducted on his injured leg, and consequent skin and muscle grafting done.
2.For loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and for loss of marital pleasure, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and this Court fining it reasonable and appropriate confirms the award granted under the above heads.
3.For loss of earning, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.72,000/- to the claimant, during the period of treatment and for transport expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. This Court, considering that the claimant has been in the hospital for a period of 1 = years and has undergone a long period of treatment at various hospitals confirms the award of the Tribunal given under the heads of loss of earning during the period of treatment and transport expenses.
4.For nutrition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. This Court confirms the same as it is found reasonable. For medical expenses, a sum of Rs.70,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, after perusal of the bills marked as Exs.A10 and A11. This Court confirms the award granted under the medical expenses, as it is found to be fair.
32.As such, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam, awarded a sum of Rs.7,46,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, in M.C.O.P.No.255 of 2004, is fair and equitable and as such this Court confirms the award passed by the Tribunal.
33.At the time of admission, this Court imposed a condition, on the appellant, on 14.09.2007, to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.255 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam. The said conditional Order has been complied with by the appellant/New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Therefore, this Court hereby directs the appellant/New India Assurance Company Ltd., to comply with the Order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam, in M.C.O.P.No.255 of 2004 and deposit the remaining balance award together with accrued interest from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.
34.As the accident happened in the year 2003, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.255 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam, after filing, necessary payment out application, in accordance with law, subject to deduction of withdrawals, if any.
35.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 16.11.2006, in M.C.O.P.No.255 of 2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
11.02.2010
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
krk
To
1.Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal,
Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam,
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.S.KARNAN, J.
krk
Pre-deliver Order in
C.M.A.No.2221 of 2007
11.02.2010