IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.10.2008 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH C.M.A.No.2847 of 2003 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The District Collector, Cuddalore. 2.The District Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore. ... Appellants Vs. 1.Srinivasan 2.Dhalayan ... Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2002 made in M.C.O.P.No. 129 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Tribunal (Prl. Sub Court), Mayiladuthurai. For Appellant : Mrs.P.Shanthi Rakkappan Special Govt. Pleader (C.S.) For Respondents : Mr.S.Soundar for R1 J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed at the instance of the State against the award dated 24.08.2002 made in M.C.O.P.No. 129 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Tribunal (Prl. Sub Court), Mayiladuthurai.
2. The case of the parties before the tribunal in brief is as follows:-
(a) The claimant was a resident of Shrimushnam Village and was aged about 46 at the time of the accident. He was a mechanic by profession. On 15.05.2000, when he was returning to his village along with the third respondent after attending a Wedding on a motor cycle TVS-50 bearing Regn. No. TN 46 3748, at about 8.45 a.m. as a pillion rider, a Trax Jeep bearing Regn. NO. TN 31 G 0140 belonging to the 2nd respondent Police Department, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from South to North on Nagarapadi Village Lake Road, hit against the motor cycle and caused the accident. The claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was rushed to JIPMER Hospital at Puducherry. Due to injuries, he sustained permanent disability and had to face pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. The accident had occurred only due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the jeep belonging to the 2nd respondent and therefore, being the owners, the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest.
(b) The 2nd respondent filed thier counter denying the averments made in the petition and contending that the rider of the motor cycle on which the petitioner was traveling as a pillion alone responsible for the accident. The driver of the jeep was no way responsible for the accident. In fact, the case has been registered only against the third respondent and the same is pending. Therefore, the third respondent alone liable to pay compensation. In any event, the petitioner is put to strict proof as to his age, avocation, income, injuries sustained in the accident and its impact in his life and the quantum of compensation sought for in the petition is exorbitant and excessive. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. The Tribunal after having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record had passed an award of Rs.63,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-
4. This appeal is preferred by the State questioning the findings as to the negligence as well the quantum of compensation. The claimant who is the first respondent herein did not prefer any appeal or cross objection for enhancement of compensation.
5. I have heard Mrs.P.Shanthi Rakkappan, learned Special Government Pleader (C.S.) appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/claimant.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader (C.S.) would submit that the tribunal had without considering the evidence adduced on the side of the respondent simply, come to the conclusion that the driver of the jeep was responsible for the accident, whereas the rider of the motor cycle in which the claimant travelled in the pillion, alone responsible for the accident. Therefore, the liability cast upon the appellants is required to be set aside. She would further submit that in any event, the claimant had not sustained any permanent disability and the tribunal had without any basis, awarded a total compensation of Rs.63,000/- which is excessive.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would, on the other hand, contend that the tribunal on the basis of the evidence let in on the side of the claimant, had rightly held that the driver of the jeep of the second respondent alone responsible for the accident and had also rightly fastened the liability upon the appellants directing them to pay a compensation of Rs.63,000/- to the petitioner taking into account of the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the disability caused due to such injuries. The same does not require any modification.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. The happening of the accident and the sustaining of injuries by the claimant in the accident are not in dispute. The contention of the appellants is that the 2nd respondent herein, who rode the motor cycle in which the claimant travelled alone was responsible for the accident and in any event the compensation awarded by the tribunal is without any basis and the same is on the higher side. On a careful perusal of the evidence adduced before the tribunal on both sides, it would show that the jeep involved in the accident belonged to the State and the driver of the jeep was also impleaded in the criminal case. The evidence regarding the facts and circumstances of the case was appraised by the tribunal and the tribunal after having found that the tyre mark of the jeep for a long distance on the road, had rightly come to the conclusion that the jeep driver was responsible for the cause of accident. The said finding cannot be said to be wrong.
9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings and mental agony; a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards permanent disability of 20%; a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards temporary loss of income; a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards attendant’s charges; a sum of Rs.500/- towards transport charges; and a sum of Rs.500/- towards extra nutrition in all a sum of Rs.63,000/- to the claimant. On a careful perusal of the Wound Certificate marked under Ex.A3, it could be seen that the claimant had sustained fracture on his right knee, loss of one tooth and also an injury on his lower lip. For the said injuries, no doubt, he was taking treatment in JIPMER Hospital in Puducherry. No doubt, the claimant would have definitely undergone much pain and sufferings due to the said injuries. Therefore, on taking into consideration of the nature of injuries, the petitioner could be awarded a just and reasonable sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferings. The Doctor who examined the claimant had assessed the permanent disability at 30% for the absence of movement of leg; 10% for mal-union of fractured bone in right knee; 10% for shortening of leg in length and in all 50% of disability. This Court could therefore, see that his right leg was completely crippled due to fracture and the resultant disability. The tribunal had not given any reason for having reduced the total percentage of disablement from 50% to 20%. If the percentage of 50% as spoken to by the Doctor is taken into consideration and a sum of Rs.1000/- for every one percent of disability is granted, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the 50% of permanent disability. The temporary loss of income was said to have been assessed for the period of two months during the period, for which there is no evidence. The tribunal had disbelieved the claim of the petitioner that he had under gone treatment for about two months and sustained monetary loss, as there was no document produced on the side of the claimant. However, the tribunal had assessed the temporary loss of income for two months and awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- which cannot be said to be correct. At the best, taking into account the nature of injuries and the course of treatment, a sum of Rs.1000/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.1000/- towards attendants’ charges and a sum of Rs.500/- each towards transport and extra nourishment and in all a sum of Rs.63,000/- could be awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, the total compensation compensation computed by the tribunal is found to be just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference in this appeal.
10. The head-wise details of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled are furnished here below:-
Head under which compensation awarded
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal
Rs.
Compensation awarded by this Court
Rs.
Pain and sufferings, shock and mental agony
25000
10000
Disability
30000
50000
Loss of Income
6000
1000
Attendant’s charges
1000
1000
Transport charges
500
500
Extra Nourishment
500
500
Total
63000
63000
11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award and decree passed by the tribunal stand confirmed. No costs.
kmk
To
The Prl. Sub Judge,
Motor Accident Tribunal,
Mayiladuthurai