IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28/07/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
CMA NPDS No.2165 of 2006
and
M.P.No.1 of 2006
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Coimbatore. .. Appellant
-Vs-
M. Paulpandi .. Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005 made
in MCOP.No.1804 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional District Judge) (Fast track court No.IV) Coimbatore at Tiruppur.
!For appellant : Mr.A. Babu
^For Respondent :
:JUDGEMENT
Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Fast Track Court No.IV, Coimbatore at Tiruppur dated 23.11.2005 made in
MCOP.No.1804 of 2002, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore,
has filed this appeal.
2. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a motor
vehicle accident that took place on 21.12.2001, the respondent herein /
injured-claimant, prayed for a compensation of sum of Rs.5 lakhs. The
Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and docu dence, passed an award for
Rs.1,49,370/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of payment. Questioning the same, Transport
Corporation has filed the present appeal.
3. Even at the outset, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant fairly states that they are aggrieved only with regard to quantum of
compensation determined by the Tribunal, it is unnecessary for this Court to
go into that aspect.
4. It is the evidence of PW.1, injured-claimant that at the
time of accident he was aged about 38 years and employed as Machine Operator
in a Private Knitting Company. He also deposed that due to the accident he
sustained fracture in his he oulder and also sustained injury on the left ear.
Ex.P.2 is wound certificate. Ex.P.3 is discharge summary, which shows that he
had a treatment at C.M.C. Hospital from 22.12.2001 to 31.12.2001 as
in-patient. In view of head injury and the advice of th e Doctors, C.T. Scan
was taken, which shows fracture of parietal bone. Ex.P.4. is scan report in
respect of fracture in the head.
5. The Doctor, who assessed the disability of the
injured-claimant was examined as PW.2. On verification of the wound
certificate, discharge summary, scan report, etc., and after examining the
injured claimant, he assessed the disability to of 39%. The disability
certificate has been marked as Ex.P.6; X-ray Ex.P.7, C.T. Scan Ex.P.8. PW.2,
on verification of all the above documents, deposed before the Court that
because of the head injury, he noticed swelling on the left side of his face
and he lost his sensation on the left shoulder and left hand. He further
deposed that movement of the left shoulder has been restricted and the injured
cannot lift heavy articles by using his left hand. The doctor, PW.2, based on
the relevant acceptab le materials, assessed his disability to the extent of
39%. When such is the position, it is not clear how the Tribunal came to a
conclusion that his disability would be only 35%. No doubt, the Tribunal, has
applied multiplier method in arriving compen sation. I am not in agreement
with the procedure followed by the Tribunal. However, taking note of the
nature of injuries, namely, fracture in the head and the consequential effect
on his face, left shoulder, left hand, restriction in movement of left
shoulder, etc., as well as of the fact that he had a treatment at CMC Hospital
from 22.12.2001 to 31.12.2001, as in-patient, I am of the view that the amount
awarded by the Tribunal, viz., Rs.1,49,370/- cannot be said to be either
excessive or unreasona ble; on the other hand, the abundunt oral and
documentary evidence amply show that the injured-claimant had suffered lot due
to the accident. In the absence to any other material, I do not find any
valid ground for interference. Hence, this appeal fail s sand the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP., is also dismissed.
kh
To
The Additional District Judge
Fast Track Court No.IV
Coimbatore.