IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.04.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S.KARNAN
C.M.A.No.861 of 2000
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Coimbatore Division) Ltd.,
Coimbatore .. Appellant
Vs
1.K.Anandakumar
2.M.Arumugam
3.S.K.Palanichamy
4.The National Insurance Company
rep.by its Divisional Manager
Coimbatore .. Respondents
(R2 & R3 set ex-parte)
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree, dated 20.07.1999, made in M.C.O.P.No.361 of 1991, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
For appellant : Mrs.S.Geetha
for M/s.Rajnish Pathiyil
For respondents : Mr.M.Sundar for R1
J U D G M E N T
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/first respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 20.07.1999, made in M.C.O.P.No.361 of 1991, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,93,417.50 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.
2.Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/first respondent, The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division) Ltd., Coimbatore has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.
3.The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 17.10.1989, at about 09.30 a.m. the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.TCG942, from north to south on the extreme left side of the Bharathiar road, Coimbatore Town. A Tempo van bearing registration No.TDV5517 was proceeding on the same road, in the same direction, ahead of the petitioner’s motorcycle. When the vehicle was opposite to Raghavan Travels, a CTC bus bearing registration No.TML4398 coming from the opposite direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the front side of the Tempo van. In the above collision, the rear body portion of the van separated from the vehicle and dashed against the petitioner. In the above impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over the body and he was admitted in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital for treatment. Subsequently, the injured petitioner was admitted in Sri Ramakrishna Hospital for treatment, on the same day.
4.At the time of the said accident, the petitioner was aged about 26 years and was hale and healthy. He was employed as a sales representative in Coimbatore Auto Industries Ltd., and drawing a salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. During the treatment period in Ramakrishna Hospital, skin grafting, fracture correction and respiratory tube fixation through chest hole was carried out and he had experienced severe pain and suffering. The Doctors opined that another operation should be performed on the petitioner to reduce the gross disfigurement. The petitioner has stated that he had spent a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards medical treatment upto the time of filing the claim petition.
5.The accident has caused not only permanent disablement, but also permanent disfigurement in the body of the petitioner. As a result of skull fracture and operations done on the brain, a large part of the bone was removed causing gross disfigurement and incapacity like combing his hair lying on the right side, taking bath and other day-to-day activities. The fracture of jaw bone, through repaired, has caused difficulty in chewing and articulation. The injured petitioner is therefore not fit for any intellectual or skill work, which he was previously pursuing. The marriage prospects of the injured petitioner has also been considerably diminished. The petitioner has lost his earning power due to the said accident. He cannot do any work as he used to do before the accident took place. He has become useless and solely dependant on others to carry out his day to day affairs.
6.As the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TML4398, the respondent, being the owner of the said bus is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, from the respondent, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
7.Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered by the Traffic Investigation Wing (W), Coimbatore, in Crime No.468/1989, as against the driver of the CTC bus bearing registration No.TML4398 under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C.
8.The first respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim regarding the manner of accident. It has been submitted that on 17.10.1989, the respondent’s bus driver took the trip at about 7.50 a.m. from Sulur and was driving the bus slowly towards Gandhipuram. Near Lakshmi Mill Signal, the driver slowly turned the vehicle to the right side and stopped the bus at the bus stop to facilitate passengers to alight. After the passengers had alighted, the driver slowly started the bus to proceed further. At that time, the Tempo van bearing registration No.TDV5517, which was driven at a high speed and in a rash manner, dashed against the bus. Due to this impact, the body of the van got detached from its chassis and fell on the motorcycle, which was closely following the van. Had the motorcyclist kept sufficient distance in following the van, the accident could have been averted. Hence, the respondent has submitted that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the van and motorcycle and that no element of negligence can be alleged against the driver of the respondent’s bus. The respondent has also stated that there is no direct collision between the bus and motorcycle, the claim petition is not sustainable as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent has also stated that the petitioner must prove that he had a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. The respondent has also not admitted the averments in the claim regarding the age, educational qualification, income, nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment and nature of treatment, alleged disability and permanent disfigurement and has stated that all these should be proved through documentary evidence.
9.It has also been submitted that as the owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing registration No.TCG942 and the driver, owner and insurer of the van bearing registration No.TDV5517 have not been added as necessary parties in the claim, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As such, the first respondent has submitted that the claim is excessive and not based on any moral, legal, ethical and rational grounds and has to be dismissed with costs.
10.The second and third respondents were set ex-parte.
11.The fourth respondent, the National Insurance Company has resisted the claim stating that the van bearing registration No.TDV5517, which was involved in the said accident on 17.10.1989 had not been covered under a policy of insurance with them. The fourth respondent has also denied the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and has stated that the alleged disability and nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner has to be proved through documentary evidence. It was also stated that the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- was excessive and has to be dismissed with costs.
12.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely:
(i) Was the accident caused by the high speed and rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the first respondent’s bus?
(ii) Was the accident caused as a result of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No.TCG942 and the driver of the van bearing registration No.TDV5517?
(iii)What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get? Who is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner?
13.On the petitioner’s side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and eleven documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P11. On the respondents’ side one witness was examined as RW1 and one document was marked as Ex.R1.
14.The petitioner was examined as PW1. The PW1, in his evidence, had adduced that on 17.10.1989, at about 09.30 a.m. he was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing registration No.TCG942 on the Bharathiar road, from north towards south, on the extreme left side of the road and that a Tempo van bearing registration No.TDV5517 was proceeding on the same road ahead of his vehicle. Whileso, the respondent’s Corporation bus bearing registration No.TML4398 was coming on the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its driver had dashed against the van proceeding ahead of his motorcycle; that due to the collision, the back body portion of the van had been disengaged from its chassis and fallen on his head; that he had sustained severe injuries due to this. He had deposed that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the both drivers of the bus and the van. Regarding the said accident, the Traffic Investigation Wing (East) of the Coimbatore Police Station has registered a criminal case in Crime No.468/1989 and an FIR had also been registered and a copy of the FIR has been marked as Ex.P1. Subsequent to the said accident, the petitioner had been admitted at the Coimbatore Government Medical Hospital and had received treatment. In support of this, the copy of the Accident Register of the Hospital has been marked as Ex.P2. The copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report of the motorcycle involved in the said accident has been marked as Ex.P3. The copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report of the bus bearing registration No.TML4398 and of the Tempo van bearing registration No.TDV5517 have been marked as Ex.p4. The copy of the Judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.8, Coimbatore, in the Criminal case filed against the driver of the first respondent’s bus had been marked as R1. It is evidence on a reading of the FIR and from the evidence of the PW1 that the accident had occurred at the junction of Bharathiar Road and Avinashi road.
15.The driver of the first respondent’s bus was examined as RW1. The RW1, in his evidence, has adduced that when the bus was proceeding on the Avinashi road, from east towards west and when it was nearing the junction of Avinashi and Bharathiar road he had turned the bus towards north in order to proceed on the Bharathiar road and that at that time the Tempo van, coming from north towards south on Bharathiar road, had dashed against the front portion of the bus; that due to the impact, the body of the van had been dislocated from its chassis and had fallen on the head of the petitioner, who had been riding his motorcycle and who had been closely following the van.
16.The Tribunal was of the opinion that the driver of the first respondent’s bus while turning the bus at the junction of Avinashi and Bharathiar road should have driven the bus carefully and ascertained whether any vehicle is coming on the Bharathiar road near that junction and then turned the bus. Likewise, the Tribunal opined that the driver of the tempo van, while proceeding on the Bharathiar road, from north to south and while nearing the Avinashi road Bharathiar road junction, should have ascertained whether any vehicle was being turned on the opposite side before proceeding forward. As such, the Tribunal were of the opinion that even if one of the drivers of the bus and tempo had driven their vehicle in a careful manner and had adhered to the traffic rules and regulations, the accident could have been averted. As such, the Tribunal held that the accident happened due to the contributory negligence on the part of the both the drivers of the first respondent’s bus and the driver of the tempo van bearing registration No.TDV5517.
17.Due to the impact, the rear body portion of the tempo had been dislocated from its chassis and fallen on the head of the petitioner, who had been riding his motorcycle behind the said tempo van and caused the accident. As such, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was not in any way responsible for the said accident.
18.The PW1, in his evidence, had adduced evidence that he was working as a sales representative at Coimbatore Auto Industries Ltd., and was earning a monthly income of Rs.2,000/- per month; that he had sustained injuries in the said accident on his head and that a portion of his skull had been fractured and that his brain had also been affected; that due to this he has lost his memory power; that his speech has also been impaired; that due to fractures sustained in his head and jaw bone; his face has been disfigured; that he had initially taken treatment at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital and subsequently at Ramakrishna Hospital; that surgery had been done on a portion of his skull bone had been removed by a surgical operation and that due to the loss of this, his day to day activities have been affected and that his marriage prospects had also been diminished; that he had sustained 80% permanent disability on this count; that he has sustained a loss in his power of thinking and doing works. He has stated that he has claimed a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. It is evidence from a scrutiny of Ex.P2, the copy of the Accident Register of Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital, that the petitioner had been admitted at the hospital, after the said accident and had received medical treatment. It is seen on reading of Ex.P2, that due to a fall of a heavy object on the right portion of his head, the skull adjacent to the point of impact had been crushed and thrust inwards; that he had sustained injuries in his right arm, right thigh and right chest and that his condition had been critical at the time of his admission in the hospital. On a scrutiny of Exs.P5, P6, P10 and P11, it is evident that subsequent to the treatment at Government Medical College Hospital, the petitioner had been admitted at Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore and had taken treatment as an inpatient at this hospital. Ex.P11 is the X’ray, which had been taken to ascertain the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner in his head. Ex.P10 shows the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the nature of treatment given while he was an inpatient at Ramakrishna Hospital. The Wound Certificate issued at Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore has been marked as Ex.P5. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, it is seen that due to the said accident, his skull had been crushed resulting in damage to his brain and that bones on his cheek and right side of his head had been fractured; that a surgical operation had been carried out to set right the above injuries in his cheek and head. It has also been stated that due to the above injuries, the petitioner has sustained 80% permanent disability. The petitioner in his petition and also in his evidence before the Tribunal that due to the injuries sustained by him on his head and consequent damage to his brain, his memory power has been impaired and that his speech has also been affected. On scrutiny of Exs.P6, the series of medical bills, it is seen that the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.43,089.60 as medical expenses for treatment at Ramakrishna Hospital and also a sum of Rs.2,527.90 for purchase of medicines. On scrutiny of Ex.P9, it is seen that the petitioner had studied at Bharathiar University and has completed his B.A.Degree Course.
19.On scrutiny of Ex.P8, the Salary Certificate of the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner had been working as a sales supervisor at Coimbatore Auto Industries Limited and earning a monthly income of Rs.1,500/-. Deducting 1/3rd share of this for the personal expenses of the petitioner, the Tribunal held that the monthly income, to be taken for assessment of compensation as Rs.1,000/-. Considering that the petitioner had incurred 80% disability in the said accident as per Ex.P5, the Tribunal held that the loss of income suffered by the petitioner was Rs.800/- per month. As such, the Tribunal assessed the yearly loss of income of the petitioner as Rs.9,600/-. On scrutiny of Ex.P7, the copy of the SSLC Certificate of the petitioner, it is seen that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.04.1964. As such, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was aged about 26 years at the time of accident. Adopting a multiplier of 18 as is relevant to the age of the petitioner, as per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal assessed the loss of future income of the petitioner as Rs.9,600/- X 18 = Rs.1,72,800/- and awarded the same as compensation to the petitioner under the head of loss of future income. In addition to this, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.43,089.60 to the petitioner for medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for his treatment at Ramakrishna Hospital and a sum of Rs.2,527.90 towards purchase of medicines. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner as compensation under the head of pain and suffering. The Tribunal, on considering that the petitioner’s disability is permanent and that he had to lead his entire life with the said handicap, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner as compensation under the head of continual permanent disability. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,93,417.50 as compensation to the petitioner and held that the first and fourth respondents have to share this liability equally amongst themselves and deposit the said award together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation together with costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.361 of 1991, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, within a period of three months from the date of its order, failing which an interest of 18% per annum has to be paid on the award from the date of its Order till the date of payment. After such deposit was made into Court, the award with accrued interest thereon was to be deposited in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit, for a period of three years and the petitioner was permitted to receive the interest on such deposit, once in six months, directly from the bank. The petitioner was directed to pay the Court fee due on the award amount, within a period of one month from the date of its order. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.2,000/- and the respondents were directed to pay the cost of Rs.4,339/- to the petitioner.
20.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first respondent has contended in her appeal that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the accident is due to the alleged rash and negligent act of the driver of the appellant and that the Tribunal had failed to note the fact that the driver of the appellant Corporation was acquitted in the criminal case foisted on him, which was decided on merits. As such, it has been contended that the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo van and not by the appellant Corporation. It has also been contended that the Tribunal failed to note the fact that the claimant, who was behind the Tempo van could not have witnessed or seen the manner in which and on whose fault or negligence, the accident occurred and ought not to have relied on the evidence of PW1.
21.It has been pointed out that the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of the RW1 and held that while the appellant Corporation bus was turning right towards Bharathiyar road from Avinashi road, the Tempo Van came in a rash manner, dashed against the bus and that the back body of the van fell on the claimant, which was evident from the evidence of the RW1.
22.It has also been contended that the disability of 80% given by the Doctor PW2 was excessive and that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded as exorbitant amount of Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disablement. It has also been pointed out that the Tribunal erred in not allowing the lumpsum deduction from the compensation arrived at. It has also been contended that the Tribunal erred in passing conditional order for payment of interest on default of payment of compensation. As such, it has been contended that the award granted by the Tribunal is excessive and so has to be set aside.
23.Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that the claimant sustained head injury in the said accident and the Doctor had assessed the disability of the claimant as 80%.
24.The Tribunal had suo-moto reduced the monthly income of the claimant and assessed the compensation after adopting multiplier method and as such it is on the lower side.
25.The learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal had failed to consider the compensation under the head of transport and attendant charges and loss of income during the period of treatment. The said compensation amount has been awarded against the appellant as well as the National Insurance Co., Ltd., The National Insurance Co., Ltd., accepted the Tribunal’s well considered award. At the time of accident, the claimant was 26 years old and he sustained grievous injuries. He had undergone treatment at various hospitals as inpatient. His medical expense alone totals Rs.45,670/-. After deducting medical expenses, the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. As such, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable.
26.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of the findings of the Tribunal and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that the award of Rs.50,000/- passed by the Tribunal under the head of permanent disability is not pertinent. Hence, this Court restructures the compensation amount as follows:
1.Rs.5,000/- granted under the head of transport expenses,
2.Rs.5,000/- granted under the head of nutrition,
3.Rs.10,000/- granted under the head of attendant charges,
4.Rs.30,000/- granted under the head of loss of pleasures of life, considering the head injuries and consequent loss of memory power,
5.Under the head of loss of income and disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,72,800/-, this Court confirm the same under this head,
6.Under the head of medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,617.50, this Court confirm the same under this head,
7.Under the head of pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, this Court confirm the same under this head,
As such, this Court confirms the Award and Decree, dated 20.07.1999, in M.C.O.P.No.361 of 1991, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, as it is found to be fair and equitable in the circumstances of the case.
27.The appellant has deposited 50% of the compensation amount in Punjab National Bank, Coimbatore. The National Insurance Company has also deposited 50% of their apportioned liability of compensation amount, into the Court. As the accident had happened in the year 1989, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the compensation amount lying the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.361 of 1991, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, by making necessary application in accordance with law, subject to deduction of withdrawal, if any.
28.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 20.07.1999, in M.C.O.P.No.361 of 1991, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
05.04.2010
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
krk
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.S.KARNAN, J.
krk
Pre-delivery Order in
C.M.A.No.861 of 2000
05.04.2010