BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/03/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.Nos.784 to 787 of 2001 M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai - Division - I) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Bye Pass Road, Madurai - 625 010. (Cause title accepted as per order dated 25.04.2001 passed in C.M.P.No.7137 of 2001 .. Appellant in all C.M.As. Vs Princelin Mathew (Respondent declared as major and discharged the father from the guardianship as per order dated 18.09.2001 passed in C.M.P.No.14576 of 2001) .. Respondent in C.M.A.No.784 of 2001 M.J.Mathai .. Respondent in C.M.A.No.785 of 2001 Mary Kutty Mathai (Respondent name amended as per order dated 18.09.2001 passed in C.M.P.No.14577 of 2001) .. Respondent in C.M.A.No.786 of 2001 P.Pandi .. Respondent in C.M.A.No.787 of 2001 Prayer Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common Judgement and Decrees dated 01.02.1999 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1213, 1214, 1219 of 1994 and 785 of 2001 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the IV Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. !For Appellant in all C.M.As. ... Mr.P.Thilak Kumar ^For Respondent No.3 in all C.M.As. ... Mr.T.Balaji :COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals are focussed as against the common Judgement and Decrees dated 01.02.1999 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1213, 1214, 1219 of 1994 and 785 of 2001 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the IV Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The Tribunal vide Judgement dated 01.02.1999 awarded compensation as follows: (i)In M.C.O.P.No.1213 of 1994 (C.M.A.No.784 of 2001): For disability -Rs.30,000.00 For pain and sufferings-Rs. 5,000.00 For extra nourishment and for transportation -Rs. 5,000.00 -------------
Total -Rs.40,000.00
————-
(ii)In M.C.O.P.No.54 of 1995 (C.M.A.No.785 of 2001):
For simple injuries -Rs. 9,000.00
For pain and sufferings -Rs. 1,000.00
————-
Total -Rs.10,000.00
————-
(iii)In M.C.O.P.No.1214 of 1994 (C.M.A.No.786 of 2001):
For grievous injury -Rs.35,000.00
For pain and sufferings -Rs. 5,000.00
For extra nourishment
and for transportation -Rs. 5,000.00
For loss of amenities -Rs.10,000.00
————-
Total -Rs.55,000.00
————-
(iv)In M.C.O.P.No.1219 of 1994 (C.M.A.No.787 of 2001):
For grievous injury -Rs.25,000.00
For pain and sufferings -Rs. 5,000.00
For extra nourishment
and for transportation -Rs. 5,000.00
————-
Total -Rs.35,000.00
————-
4. These civil miscellaneous appeals have arisen out of the common
Judgment dated 01.02.1999 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1213, 1214, 1219 of 1994 and 54
of 1995 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the IV Additional
Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
5. The challenge in these appeals is relating to the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal without
adhering to any norms awarded excessive compensation.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded ‘just
compensation’?
7.The point:
(i)C.M.A.No.784 of 2001:
The challenge in this appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only)
relating to Princelin Mathew, a girl of sixteen years old, who sustained 14%
permanent disability. As per Ex.A6, the wound certificate, she sustained the
following injuries:
“(i) Contusion swelling (Rt) arm
(ii) Black eye present (Rt)
(iii) Chest pain
(iv) Abrasion (Rt) chest 5 x 5 cm”.
8. In Ex.A7, the treatment particulars, the doctor set out the following:
“Patient was admitted with H/O. RTA today with tenderness over the chest
both sides. x-ray chest showed Ist Rib both sides. Patient was seen by
orthopaedician. And also patient was seen by ENT Surgeon and opthalmologist and
reported as NIL ENT and echnew CT scan brain and cervical spine rule out any
internal hge and any Bonelesion and it was also normal. Patient was put on
complete bed rest, artibiotics, analgesics and vitamins. With all above
treatment she was better and discharged on 16.7.1994.
9. As such, considering the medical evidence, the Tribunal assessed the
permanent disability at 14% and awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty
thousand only) for the grievous injury sustained by the claimant. Apparently in
my opinion, such awarding the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only)
towards permanent disability, which I consider as the one awarded towards loss
of earning capacity, need not be interfered with as the young girl of sixteen
years old, sustained severe injuries on her chest.
10. Towards pain and sufferings a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand
only) and towards extra nourishment and transportation a sum of Rs.5000/-
(Rupees five thousand only) were awarded. As such, the total compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in my opinion is found to be proper and no interference
is required.
11.C.M.A.No.785 of 2001:
The challenge in this appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)
relating to M.J.Mathai, a man of forty nine years old, who sustained injuries on
his forehead and ear. As per Ex.A13, the wound certificate, he sustained the
following injuries:
“(i) Laceration (Lt) forehead 3 x 2 c.m.
(ii) Abrasion below W.No.1 2 x 2 c.m.
(iii) Swelling (Rt) ear present”
12. In Ex.A14, the treatment particulars, the doctor set out the
following:
“Patient was admitted with H/O RTA today and sustained multiple injuries.
The injuries over the face and nose were sutured with prolene. On routine
examination he was found to be Diabetic and HT for which physical opinion was
obtained and he advised anti Hypertensive (T.Atelol,T.Envas) and oral anti
diabetics (T.Daonel). Patient was also put on antibiotic, analgesic and
vitamins. Meanwhile patient had mild pain and deafness left ear. Patient was
seen by ENT surgeon and he advised X-ray both mastoid and audiogram and it was
normal. On 6th day sutures were removed and would was healed well”.
13. As such, considering the medical evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) for the simple injury sustained by the
claimant, which requires no interference. Towards pain and sufferings a sum of
Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) was also awarded. As such, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal in my opinion is found to be proper and no
interference is required.
17.C.M.A.No.787 of 2001:
The challenge in this appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand
only) relating to P.Pandi, a man of twenty five years old, who sustained 20%
loss of earning capacity. The perusal of Ex.A11, the wound certificate, would
reveal that the claimant sustained the following injuries:
“(i) Contusion swelling (Lt) II III IV finger;
(ii) Contusion (Rt) decloid regim 2 x 2 c.m.”.
18. P.W.5, Doctor M.Chidambaram, who issued Ex.A20, the disability
certificate, assessed the quantum of disability at 14%, with reference to
Ex.A11, the would certificate. The perusal of Ex.A8 and A18 would demonstrate
that the claimant sustained severe injuries and I could see no reason to
disagree with the assessment of 14% permanent disability which represents the
loss of earning capacity, arrived at by the Tribunal, which correctly awarded a
sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for it, taking into
account, the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the claimant and hence no
interference is required.
19. Towards pain and sufferings a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand
only) and towards extra nourishment and transportation a sum of Rs.5000/-
(Rupees five thousand only), were awarded, which require no interference in view
of the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant. As such, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal in my opinion is found to be proper which
should be confirmed.
20. The Tribunal awarded 12% interest p.a., hence, it is reduced to 7.5%
in commensurate with the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Ltd. vs.S.Rajapriya & Others reported in 2005(2)TAC 297 SC
and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie and another reported in
2006(1)TAC 1 (SC).
21. I, therefore do not find any merit in these Appeals and accordingly
the appeals are dismissed. The awards of the Tribunal are confirmed, however the
compensation amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date
of M.C.O.Ps. till deposit. No costs.
smn
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum
the IV Additional Subordinate Judge,
Madurai.