IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.2292 OF 2008 C.Kumaresan ... Appellant Vs . 1.P.Dhanabal 2.Rajamani 3.The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd., 11-19-20, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 18. ... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.12.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.1492 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore (transferred M.C.O.P.No.1536 of 2006, First Additional Court, Coimbatore). For Appellant : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.K.Padmanabhan (R-1) Mr.A.Bobblie ----- J U D G M E N T
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / claimant against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.12.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.1492 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore (transferred M.C.O.P.No.1536 of 2006, First Additional Court, Coimbatore).
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
On 27.04.2006, the petitioner and his friend were travelling in a taxi bearing Registration No.TN37-AB-6589 from Vijayamangalam to Coimbatore on the Avinashi Road, at that time, the driver of the taxi tried to avoid dashing against the opposite vehicle, as a consequence, the vehicle dashed against a tree and as a result, he and his friends had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the claimant had filed the compensation petition against the respondents for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- together with interest.
3.The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The respondent denied the accident that it had been committed by the driver of the car. Actually, a two-wheeler came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and to avoid the collusion between the two vehicles, the driver of the car turned away from the road side and as a result, the vehicle hit a tree. The respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant, besides the claim amount is excessive.
4.On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed four issues for consideration, namely;
(i)Was the first respondent responsible for the said accident?
(ii)At the time of the accident was the vehicle insured with the Insurance Company?
(iii)Is the claimant entitled to receive compensation?
(iv)What is the other relief?
5.On the side of the claimant two witnesses had been examined viz.,PW1-Kumaresan / claimant, PW2-Viguruprasath and twelve documents were marked, viz., First Information Report, Rough Sketch, Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report, Charge Sheet, Wound Certificate, Disability Summary, Medical Bills, Salary Certificate, X-ray, copy of the Medical Claim policy etc.,
On the side of the respondents no witness was examined and no document was marked.
6.PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 27.04.2006, at around 07.30 p.m., he and two others were travelling in a Car bearing Registration No.TN37-AB-6859 from Vijayamangalam to Coimbatore, the first respondent had driven the vehicle. When the vehicle was nearing Chenniandavar temple, when at that point of time, a two wheeler was coming from the opposite direction, to avoid the collusion against the two wheeler, the first respondent dashed against the tamarind tree, in the result, he had sustained grievous injuries. He had undergone treatment as an inpatient for about two months. During the medical treatment period, he had spent a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards medical treatment and medicines. He had sustained bone fracture on his left hand, injury to thigh, right elbow and hip. At the time of the accident, he was working as an employee in LIC and was earning a salary of Rs.11,424/- per month. Due to the accident, he had not attended the office for about five months.
7.On considering the age of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.70,500/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
8.Not being satisfied with the award, the claimant has filed the above appeal for additional compensation a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
9.The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on both his hands and on the right thigh. He had undergone treatment for about two months as an inpatient and thereafter, he underwent treatment as an outpatient for a lengthy period and was on leave for about five months.
10.Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the claimant is an LIC employee and he claimed reimbursement from his Department, as such the claimant is not entitled to receive compensation under the head of medical expenses. Therefore, the doctor had not examined regarding the nature of injuries and disability of the claimant.
11.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant had incurred bone fracture injuries and was on leave about for four months, the Tribunal had not considered compensation for necessary heads, hence, this Court grants the additional compensation as mentioned below:-
Rs.10,000/- towards grievous injuries;
Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition;
Rs.5,000/- for transport charges;
Rs.5,000/- for attender charges;
Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering as additional compensation under these heads.
Therefore, this Court grants the additional compensation amount a sum of Rs.35,000/-. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.1,05,500/-, which is fair and justifiable.
12.Therefore, this Court directs the New India Assurance Company Limited to deposit the modified compensation amount as observed above to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1492 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such a deposit being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the modified compensation amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1492 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore, after filing a Memo along with this order.
13.Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore made in M.C.O.P.No.1492 of 2006, dated 31.12.2007 is modified. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.04.2011
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
r n s
C.S.KARNAN,J.
r n s
To
The Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.1,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Coimbatore.
C.M.A.No.2292 OF 2008
18.04.2011