IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.3.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.723 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. Vaithiyanathan alias Vaithiyanathasamy. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 8.5.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1), Chidambaram. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 8.5.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1), Chidambaram.
2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 30.10.2001 at 11.30 a.m. The injured claimant Vaithiyanathan alias Vaithiyanathasamy, was proceeding on a cycle. The appellant transport corporation bus coming from behind driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the cyclist. In that accident, the said Vaithiyanathan alias Vaithiyanathasamy suffered grievous injuries. He was admitted at Chidambaram Government Hospital. Thereafter, for further treatment at Annamalai Hospital. It is stated that the claimant was in hospital for more than a year. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injury suffered in the accident stating that he is an agricultural coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day at the time of accident.
3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Balamurugavel was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.A-1 is the photocopy of FIR,
Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Inspection
Report,
Ex.A-3 is the discharge summary,
Ex.A-4 is the treatment certificate,
Ex.A-5 is the medical bill for Rs.100/- and
Ex.A-6 is the disability certificate.
Through the doctor P.W.2, X-Ray, M.O.1 was also marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant transport corporation bus and therefore, such finding stands confirmed. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation, particularly the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal in a case of injury.
5. The Tribunal in this case fixed the age of the injured claimant as 65 years. Considering the claimant’s occupation as an agricultural coolie, the Tribunal fixed the income of the injured claimant at Rs.1,500/- per month. Based on the age, the Tribunal adopted 5 multiplier and for the disability assessed at 20% under Ex.A-6 granted a sum of Rs.18,000/- (Rs.1,500/- x 12 x 5 x 20% = Rs.18,000/-) as pecuniary loss to the injured claimant. Further, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- for injuries and a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income for one year. In all the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.41,000/- with interest at 7.5%.
6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that since the fracture had healed and there is no total permanent disability, the Tribunal erred in adopting multiplier method to determined the compensation. Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced.
7. On going through the award of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation on the above said contention for the following reasons:-
(i) The accident in this case happened on 30.10.2001. The injured claimant is an agricultural coolie who has to make his living by physical strength.
(ii) The injured claimant suffered various injuries including fracture of the backbone, viz., L2. The disability assessed under Ex.A-6 is 20%. The claimant will be entitled to Rs.20,000/- for the disability assessed at 20%. He is also entitled to extra nourishment expenses, transport and attender charges which were omitted by the Tribunal.
(iii) In such view of the matter no good ground has been made out for reduction of the quantum of compensation even if it is accepted that the multiplier method will not apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the sum of Rs.18,000/- granted towards pecuniary loss does not require any further reduction.
(iv) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.41,000/- is reasonable and does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2001 and the award is of the year 2008.
8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks’ time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : No 30.3.2009
Internet : Yes
ts
To
The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.1,
(The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Chidambaram.
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
ts
Judgment in
C.M.A.No.723 of 2009
30.3.2009