IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 5.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3327 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Division-I, Ramakrishna Road, Salem-7. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. A.Ponnuvel. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 6.6.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1864 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2), Salem. For appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh ----- JUDGMENT
The Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 6.6.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1864 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2), Salem.
2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 13.8.2002 on the Attur-Salem Main Road. The injured claimant Ponnuvel, aged 25 years, running a grocery shop and rice-mundy, was travelling on a motorcycle along with his mother Poongothai at about 12.30 p.m. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle and both the injured claimant Ponnuvel and the pillion rider, the mother were thrown out of the vehicle. Both sustained serious injuries. They were taken to Attur Government Hospital and given first aid. They were then taken to S.K.S. Hospital, Salem and thereafter, to Kovai Ganga Hospital. The mother Poongothai, however, died in spite of best treatment. The claimant Ponnuvel survived and claimed that he was treated for three months in hospital. He stated that he suffered grievous injuries to the right leg foot region. He also suffered a fracture in that area and injuries all over body. A sum of Rs.4,90,000/- was claimed as compensation by the injured claimant in this case stating that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of accident in his business of running a grocery shop and rice mundy.
3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Doctor Shridhar was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-12 were filed, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR,
Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate,
Ex.A-3 is the post-mortem certificate of Poongothai
Ex.A-4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Inspection Report in respect of
the bus,
Ex.A-5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Inspection Report in respect of
the two wheeler,
Ex.A-6 is the copy of rough sketch,
Ex.A-7 is the copy of charge-sheet,
Ex.A-6 is the discharge summary,
Ex.A-8 is the death certificate of Poongothai,
Ex.A-9 is the legal heir certificate,
Ex.A-10 series are the medical bills for Rs.87,623.20,
Ex.A-11 series are the medical bills for Rs.3,12,722.30 and
Ex.A-12 is the disability certificate.
The driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal, based on the FIR, the Motor Vehicle’s Inspector’s Inspection Report, Sketch and the charge-sheet filed against the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, came to the conclusion that the accident in this case was caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus. The evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the bus, was rejected on the ground that the driver of the bus did not take any steps to lodge a complaint or let in evidence to show that the claimant in this case was negligent and was responsible for the accident. Therefore, in the absence of any material to support appellant’s plea, the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability to compensate the claimant by the transport corporation stands confirmed.
5. The only contention raised by the appellant’s counsel in this appeal is on the quantum of compensation.
6. The Tribunal decided the issue relating to compensation from paragraph 12 onwards in answer to point No.2. The Tribunal referred to the injuries suffered by the claimant to the right foot which was fractured due to the accident, the nature of treatment given at Attur Government Hospital, thereafter at S.K.S. Hospital and then at Kovai Ganga Hospital. The treatment is supported by Ex.A-10 medical bills. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the injured claimant had suffered tendon injury to the foot region whereby the nerves were cut and the bones were exposed and this had been treated by plastic surgery. It is stated that layers of skin was cut from left thigh and grafted on the right leg foot. Doctor further opined that due to injury and fracture, the movement of the right leg is affected. There is a big scar on the right leg. The movement of the right foot upward is affected. Therefore, the claimant cannot walk and stand for long. Considering the nature of injuries, the medical treatment undergone and the difficulty faced by the claimant, consequent to the injuries, the doctor assessed the disability at 25% under Ex.A-12. The income of the injured claimant, though claimed at Rs.10,000/- per month, in the absence of proper evidence, was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal considering the occupation, injury, disability assessed at 25% granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5%:-
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Disability assessed at 25%
Rs. 25,000/-
2
Medical bills as per Ex.A-10
Rs. 87,600/-
3 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- 4 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- 5 Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- 6 Loss of income for three months (Rs.3,000/- per month) Rs. 9,000/- Total Rs.1,36,600/-
7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the disability assessed at 25% is on the higher side and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced.
8. This court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal by way of reduction for the following reasons:-
(i) The nature of injury, the treatment given and the disability assessed in respect of the injured claimant has been set out above in detail. However, the appellant is not able to show how the disability assessed at 25% is erroneous or excessive. The Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/- alone for the disability assessed at 25%.
(ii) In this case, the claimant has undergone extensive medical procedure. The Tribunal granted meagre amounts towards extra nourishment, pain and suffering and for transport expenses.
(iii) No amount has been granted for attender charges.
(iv) Considering all these aspects, this Court is unable to find any good reason to interfere with the award and to reduce the quantum of compensation as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2002 and the award was passed in the year 2008.
9. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks’ time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : No 5.11.2008
Internet: Yes
ts
To
1. Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.2,
(The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal)
Salem.
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
ts
Judgment in
C.M.A.No.3327 of 2008
5.11.2008