IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.3.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.698 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kancheepuram. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. J.Sivakumar. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 10.10.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.572 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), Tiruvallur. For appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh For respondent : Mr.Saravanakumar ----- JUDGMENT
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 10.10.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.572 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), Tiruvallur.
2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 2.6.2004. The injured claimant J.Sivakumar, said to be aged 31 years, a silversmith, was travelling on a two wheeler from Tiruvallur to Poondi. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation coming from the opposite direction driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the two wheeler. In that accident, the said Sivakumar suffered fracture of right leg and right thigh and injuries all over body. He was treated at Government Hospital, Tiruvallur and Stanley Hospital, Chennai for the period from 2.6.2004 to 28.6.2004. Once again he was treated from 25.10.2004 to 1.12.2004 and for the further period from 18.2.2005 to 11.3.2005. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries suffered in the accident.
3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Mr.Sivalingam, another silversmith was examined as P.W.2 to speak about the employment and income of the injured claimant. Dr.Thiyagarajan was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of FIR dated 2.6.2004,
Exs.P-2 to P-4 are the discharge summaries,
Ex.P-5 is the accident register dated 2.6.2004,
Ex.P-6 is the certified copy of accident register,
Ex.P-7 is the certified copy of driving licence,
Ex.P-8 is the certified copy of renewal licence,
Ex.P-9 is the disability certificate dated 30.7.2007 assessing the
disability at 75% and
Ex.P-10 is the X-Ray.
No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal in its award stated that the injured claimant was travelling on a motor cycle from Tiruvallur to Krishnapuram and when he was nearing the Tiruvallur Tollgate, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-2001 driven in a rash and negligent manner at a turning dashed against the two wheeler, which resulted in the serious and grievous injuries to the claimant. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that even as per the F.I.R., the rash and negligent driving is on the part of the driver of the bus. Though a plea is taken in the counter-affidavit, appellant transport corporation has not taken any steps to let in any oral or documentary evidence refuting the stand of the claimant. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant does not seriously dispute the negligence and liability. The only serious contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation.
5. The Tribunal in this case discussed the various injuries suffered by the injured claimant, viz., fracture of the left thigh, the injuries to the hip joint region and the left knee. It also took into consideration the evidence of the doctor P.W.3, who assessed the difficulties faced by the injured claimant consequent to the injury and he clearly stated that the injured claimant was suffering pain in both bones in left leg below knee which were fractured and mal united. He stated that rods were fixed and the flexion of the left knee is restricted. According to the doctor, the claimant was walking with a limp and he has to use the stick to support himself. The total disability assessed is 75% as per Ex.P-9. In para 7 of the award, the details of the medical management given to the claimant is discussed and it is set out in the 3 discharge summaries Exs.P-2 to P-4 and the claimant was in hospital for three periods. In these background, considering the age of the injured claimant and the occupation as silversmith, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:-
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Injuries
Rs. 40,000/-
2
Treatment and other expenses
Rs. 10,000/-
3
Pain and suffering
Rs. 60,000/-
4
Future medical expenses.
Rs. 25,000/-
Total
Rs.1,35,000/-
6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the sum of Rs.60,000/- granted for pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- for future medical expenses are not justified and in any event it is excessive. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.
7. Though such a plea is attractive, on going through the award, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the total compensation awarded for the following reasons:-
(i) The accident in this case happened on 2.6.2004. The injured claimant was 31 years old at the time of accident.
(ii) He suffered three injuries and he was in hospital on three occasions. Surgical procedures were done and rods were fixed. The opinion of the doctor states about the serious nature of the injuries and it is affected in the day-to-day life of the injured claimant.
(iii) The injured claimant is a silversmith and is a self employed. He had taken treatment for a period of 9 to 12 months. No compensation has been granted towards loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence, even though the income was stated to be Rs.200/- per day as stated by P.W.2, another silversmith. Ex.P-8 is the licence for running the silversmith work. Therefore, the injured claimant is entitled to reasonable compensation towards loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence.
(iv) No amount has been granted for excess nutritious food and attender charges.
(v) Even for disability assessed at 75%, a meagre sum of Rs.40,000/- alone was granted under the head injuries. For transport, no amount has been granted.
(vi) Considering all the above aspects, the excess compensation granted in one or other heads, can be justified on the various heads for which compensation was not given. Therefore, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- does not require any further reduction and the heads on which can be suitably modified as set out above.
(vii) As far as interest is concerned, there is no dispute by the counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.
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 Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.V,
(The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Tiruvallur