P.Kannammal vs Metropolitan Transport … on 8 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.12.2008

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

C.M.A.Nos.194 and 7 of 1998


C.M.A.No.194 of 1998:-

P.Kannammal                                        ... Appellant/Respondent  

		                   vs.

Metropolitan Transport  Corporation Limited
(Chennai Divison No.I)
rep. by its Managing Director
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002               ... Respondent/Petitioner 

(Cause Title amended vide
order dated 22.1.2001 made in
CMP.NO.13677 OF 2000
by D..R (AS)
C.M.A.No.7 of 1998:-

Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.
rep. by its The Managing Director,
Pallavan House, Pallavan Salai,
Chennai 600 002                                      ... Appellant/Respondent  

		                   vs.

P.Kannamal                                               ... Respondent/Petitioner 

      Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common Judgment and decree dated 28.7.1997 made in MACTOP.NO.756 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai.


	For appellant in
	CMA.No.194 OF 1998               :  Ms.Salim Fathima
				         for Mr.M.Swamikannu 
            For respondent in
            CMA.NO.194 OF 1998                : No appearance

-----

COMMON JUDGMENT
	CMA.No.7 of 1998: This appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the award dated 28.7.1997 passed in M.C.O.P.NO. 756 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Small Causes Court) Madras.

	CMA.No.194 of 1998: This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the very same award seeking enhancement of compensation.
	3. Since both the appeals arise under the one and the same award, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal.
	
	4. M/s K.Sundranath and A.C.Kumaragurubaran, learned counsel appeared for the transport Corporation have filed a memo stating that they have returned the bundles to the transport corporation and cease to be their advocate. Hence, the name of the 
transport corporation has been printed in the cause list. None appears for the transport corporation.

	5. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 19.1.1995. The injured claimant Kannammal, aged about 55 years engaged in business of selling eatables, was a passenger in a bus from Tambaram to Pallavaram. While she was getting down, the Conductor without noticing that the passenger was getting down, blew the whistle and the driver started the vehicle suddenly and due to that, she fell down from the bus and sustained grievous injuries. She was taken to Chrompet Government Hospital and then she was referred to Government General Hospital, Chennai where she was treated for a period of four days as inpatient. Thereafter she was taken to Puthoor Bone Setting Hospital at Andhara Pradesh for treatment. She filed a claim petition claiming for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident.
		
	 6. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as PW1. The doctor was examined as PW2 and PW3 is the eye witness and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. Ex.A1 is the outpatient chit. Ex.A2 is the disability certificate and Ex.A3 is the X ray. On 

 behalf of the Transport Corporation, one Balan was examined as RW1 and First Information Report was marked as Ex.R1. 
	
	7.  The finding of negligence on the part of the conductor and driver of the transport corporation bus, as responsible for the accident and the injury and the liability fixed on the transport corporation to compensate the claimant is not in dispute and the same is confirmed.  

	8. The counsel for the claimant contended that the award amount is very low and he prays enhancement of compensation.
	 
	9.  The Tribunal dealt with the quantum of compensation in paragraph 8 of the award in answer to point No.2. The Tribunal considering the injury viz., compound and communited fracture in right leg, thigh bone and dislocation of bone in right leg, the disability   assessed at 80% by the doctor and also considering the pain and suffering undergone,  granted  the following amount as compensation:
	
Sl.No.
Head 
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Transport
Rs.      500/-
2
Extra Nourishment
Rs.     500/-
3
Pain and sufferings
Rs.  5,000/-
4
Disability
Rs. 50,000/-

                                                Total
Rs. 56,000/-

	10. On going through the evidence on record and the documents produced, it is clear that the disability has been assessed at 80% by the doctor and for the same only Rs.50,000/- has been granted. Further for transport and Extra Nourishment, a sum of Rs.500/- each alone has been granted and that is marginally lower. For pain and suffering only Rs.5,000/- has been granted and no amount has been granted for attender charges and loss of income during the period of treatment.
	 
	11 Considering all these aspects and the fact that the compensation on all heads are meagre, this Court is not inclined to accept the Transport Corporation appeal for reduction of quantum of compensation , on the contrary, the claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation has to be accepted, as the claimant suffered disability assessed at 80% due to the compound and communited fracture in right leg, thigh bone and dislocation of bone in right leg.  The contention of the claimant's counsel is that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on the low, particularly, the amount granted for disability.  Further, in this case, no amount has been granted for attender charges and loss of income during the period of treatment. The amount granted for transport and Extra Nourishment and pain and suffering is meagre. In such view of the matter, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part and award is enhanced as follows:
	
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
Amount granted by this Court
1
Disability assessed at 80%
Rs   50,000/-
Rs.    60,000/-
2
Transport Expenses
Rs.       500/-
Rs.      1,000/-
3
Extra Nourishment
Rs.       500/-
Rs.      1,000/-
4
Pain and suffering
Rs.     5,000/-
Rs.    10,000/-

5
Loss of income during treatment
       ---
Rs.     15,000/-
6
Attender charges
        ---
Rs.     3,000/-

                                         Total
Rs.    56,000/-
Rs.  90,000/-
	
	
	12. The interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% is confirmed as the accident in this case happened in the year 1995 and the award was passed in the year 1997. However, the enhanced amount of Rs.34,000/- shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum.
               
	   13. CMA.No.7 of 1998: In view of the finding in CMA.NO.194 of 1998, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. It is stated that entire award amount has been deposited and the claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount. Claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount.

	14.CMANo.194 of 1998: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part as follows:-
           (i) The award of the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.90,000/- from Rs.56,000/-.
            (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% on the sum of Rs.56,000/- is confirmed. However, the enhanced amount of Rs.34,000/- shall carry interest at 7.5% from the date of claim petition till date of deposit.

	(iii) It is stated that entire award amount as ordered by the Tribunal was deposited and the claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount as per order made in CMA.NO.7 OF 1998. The respondent transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount of Rs.34,000/- with interest as ordered by this Court in this appeal. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same with interest.
		(iv) There will be no order as to costs.
		(v) Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
			                                        08.12.2008
Index:No
Internet:Yes
VJY			

To
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 
(II Judge, Court of Small Causes) 
Chennai.

R.SUDHAKAR,J.

VJY

Judgment in
C.M.A.Nos.194 and 7 of 1998
8.12.2008