The Managing Director vs Lakshmi on 21 April, 2008

0
88
Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Lakshmi on 21 April, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 21/04/2008

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

C.M.A.(MD)No.1356  of 2007
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007

The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd,
Kumbakonam Division No.-II,
Periamilaguparai,
Tiruchi-I.						  .. Appellant

Vs.

Lakshmi						  .. Respondent


Prayer

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against
the Decree and Judgment dated 19.01.2007, passed in M.C.O.P.No.461 of 2003, on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional Sub Court),
Tiruchirapalli.

!For Appellant	    	    	 ... Mr.K.Gokul

^For Respondent 		 ... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai


:JUDGMENT

This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated
19.01.2007, passed in M.C.O.P.No.461 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (III Additional Sub Court), Tiruchirapalli.

2.Heard both sides.

3. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 19.01.2007,
to a tune of Rs.64,500/-(Rupees Sixty Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) on
the following sub-heads:

	(i)For Permanent disability	   - Rs.  49,500.00		
	(ii)For Pain and Suffering and
		Mental Agony		   - Rs.  10,000.00	

(iii)For Transportation Expenses – Rs. 3,000.00

(iv) For Nutritious Food – Rs. 2,000.00

————–

		 	         Total     - Rs.  64,500.00				
						--------------

4. Animadverting upon the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
the Transport Corporation preferred this appeal on various grounds, the gist and
kernel of them would run thus:

The Tribunal awarded a huge compensation of Rs.64,500/- without adhering
to any norms. For the fracture of the left leg, the permanent disability was
assessed at 33%. Accordingly, the appellant prays for modification of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5.The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded ‘just
compensation’?

6. During enquiry in this case along with the other connected cases, on
the side of the claimants P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.17 were
marked and R.W.1 was examined on the side of the respondent. No documentary
evidence was adduced on the side of the respondent.

7. Point: The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation
would submit that the Tribunal simply awarded a sum of Rs.49,500/- for 33%
permanent disability at the rate of Rs.1,500/- for each percentage of permanent
disability sustained by the petitioner. Whereas the learned counsel for the
claimant would echo the cri de coeur of the claimant to the effect that because
of the injury sustained by him he could not continue his work as a labourer and
hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal warrants no interference.

8. No doubt assessment of 33% permanent disability for the fracture of the
left hand is on the higher side. At this juncture, I would like to refer to
Schedule I, Part II, Serial No.20 of the Workmen Compensation Act, which is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

“20.Amputation below with stump exceeding (8.89 cms.) but not exceeding (12.70
cms.) – 50%”

As such even for amputation below knee with stump exceeding 8.89 cms. the
permanent disability is assessed at 50%. But here for the fracture of left leg
the permanent disability was assessed at 34%, which is obviously on the higher
side. However, it could taken that he sustained permanent disability to a tune
of 24%. Taking into consideration the fact that the claimant sustained injury
at the age of 18, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for each
percent of permanent disability would meet the ends of justice. If accordingly
worked out for 24% permanent disability the compensation comes to Rs.48,000/-
(Rupees Forty Eight Thousand only), which is almost the same as the Tribunal
awarded, even though the criterion is different.

9. The compensation amounts awarded under other sub-heads also are found
to be reasonable, in such a case, I am of the considered opinion that this is
not a fit case for interference.

10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007 is closed. No costs.

sj

TO

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(The III Additional Sub Court),
Tiruchirapalli.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *