IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.1.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.81 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram (Division-I), Villupuram District. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. M.Govindasamy. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 27.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.423 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 27.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.423 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar.
2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 31.7.2004. The injured claimant M.Govindasamy, aged 58 years, a retired Government employee, was running Photocopying Centre and was living thereby. He was travelling in the appellant transport corporation bus, which capsized in a lake due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. In that accident the said Govindasamy suffered grievous injuries. He was first treated at the Government Hospital, Vandavasi and then at Chengalpattu Government Hospital. Thereafter at Government General Hospital at Chennai and then at Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injury suffered in the accident.
3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Balakrishnan, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-21 were marked. On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant.
4. The Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus and was responsible for the accident, in which the claimant suffered grievous injury and consequently, liability to compensate the injured claimant was fixed on the appellant transport corporation. Such finding of the Tribunal is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal based on the oral evidence of the claimant and that of the doctor assessing disability at 40% under Ex.A-20, and also the medical records issued by the various hospitals in which, the claimant had taken treatment, granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:-
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Disability assessed at 40%
Rs. 40,000/-
2
Medical expenses as per Ex.A-10
Rs. 37,588/-
3 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- 4 Pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/- 5 Grievous injuries Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs.1,12,588/-
6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that a sum of Rs.20,000/- granted for grievous injuries is not sustainable as adequate compensation has been granted for disability. Therefore, the same has to be reduced.
7. 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 31.7.2004. The injured claimant was 58 years old at the time of accident. He is a retired Government employee and admittedly running a photocopying centre.
(ii) The injured claimant was in various hospitals for the grievous injuries to the back bone. Therefore, he would have spent some amount towards attender charges and extra nutritious food. Since, no amount was granted on those heads, the sum of Rs.20,000/- granted to grievous injuries can be adjusted on those heads which were omitted by the Tribunal.
(iii) Considering the above aspects, the total compensation in a sum of Rs.1,12,588/- stands confirmed as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2004 and the award was passed in this case in 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.
ts
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Cheyyar