IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.2.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.353 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram Division-II, Rangapuram, Vellore. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. K.K.Ponnambalam. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 2.4.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.156 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2), Ranipettai. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 2.4.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.156 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2), Ranipettai.
2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 13.12.2002. The injured claimant K.K.Ponnambalam, aged 60 years, a mason-cum-coolie, was going on the road, when he was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, the claimant Ponnambalam suffered fracture on the left hand and was treated in hospital. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.1 lakh for the injury suffered in the accident stating that he was earning a sum of Rs.3,250/- per month at the time of accident.
3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Riyas Ahamed was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR,
Ex.A-2 is the copy of wound certificate and
Ex.A-3 is the disability certificate.
On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal, one Esudass was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation.
4. The Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the driver of the appellant transport corporation was rash and negligent in driving the bus and was responsible for the accident, in which the claimant suffered fracture to his left hand and liability to compensate the injured claimant was fixed on the appellant transport corporation. Such finding of the Tribunal is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed.
5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence, the age, occupation, income, the nature of injury suffered by the claimant and the disability assessed at 30%, granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 6% per annum:-
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Loss of income during the period of treatment
Rs. 1,000/-
2 Extra nourishment Rs. 500/- 3 Disability assessed at 30% Rs.30,000/- 4 Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.56,500/-
6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the sum of Rs.25,000/- granted towards pain and suffering is high. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.
7. While going through the award of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation on the above said contention for the following reasons:-
(i) The accident in this case happened on 13.12.2002. The injured claimant was 60 years old at the time of accident. He is a self earning coolie-cum-mason. In such a case, the income of the claimant can be taken as Rs.100/- per day. Accordingly, the loss of income of the injured during the period of treatment and convalesce can be taken at least Rs.5,000/-.
(ii) No amount has been granted for transport and attender charges.
(iii) The sum of Rs.500/- granted towards extra nourishment is very meagre.
(iv) In this case the Tribunal granted only 6% interest whereas the prevailing rate of interest is 7.5%.
(v) Considering the above aspects, the excess amount said to be granted towards pain and suffering can be adjusted towards attender charges and towards transport expenses, which were omitted by the Tribunal and also considering the fact that a lesser amount is granted towards nutritious food expenses and the lesser interest granted.
(vi) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation granted by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.56,500/- does not require any further reduction.
8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks’ time to deposit the award amount and is granted. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.2.2009
Index : No
Internet : Yes
ts
To
The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.2,
(The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal)
Ranipettai.
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
ts
Judgment in
C.M.A.No.353 of 2009
17.2.2009