IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.3.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.636 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram Division-III, Kancheepuram. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. P.Manikkam Aasari. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 30.11.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1365 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2), Chennai. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 30.11.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1365 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2), Chennai.
2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 14.9.2002. The injured claimant P.Manikkam Aasary, aged 60 years, a carpenter, was travelling in the appellant transport corporation bus. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, the bus hit a lorry. In that accident, the said Manikkam suffered the following injuries:-
(i) fracture on the left ankle,
(ii) fracture on the left foot,
(iii)grievous injuries on the left knee and
(vi) injury on the upper eye brow.
He had taken treatment at Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai from 14.9.2002 to 17.9.2002 as inpatient and then as outpatient. He filed a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries suffered in the accident.
3. The claim was adjudicated along with connected claim M.C.O.P.No.1366 of 2003. In support of the claim on hand, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.K.J.Mathialagan, was examined as P.W.3. Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked, the details of relevant documents in this case are as follows:-
Ex.A-1 is the copy of O.P.Chit for taking treatment at Government
Stanley Hospital, Chennai,
Ex.A-5 series are the CT Cassettes,
Ex.A-7 is the FIR,
Ex.A-8 is the disability certificate assessing the disability at 35% and
Ex.A-9 is the X-Ray.
The Driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation.
4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the injuries suffered by the claimant and the disability assessed by the doctor at 35% under Ex. A-8, the disability certificate, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest per annum:-
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
Pain and suffering
Rs.10,000/-
2
Loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence
Rs.10,000/-
3
Transport expenses
Rs. 2,000/-
4
Extra nourishment expenses
Rs. 2,000/-
5
Medical expenses
Es. 2,000/-
6
Disability assessed at 35%
Rs.50,000/-
Total
Rs.76,000/-
5. The Tribunal discussed the negligence in paragraph 8 of the award in answer to point No.1 and held that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus based on Ex.A-7 FIR and the oral evidence of the injured claimant. There is no material to controvert the same. The evidence of R.W.1 did not appeal to the Tribunal on merits. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, as responsible for the accident and the injury and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation, cannot be and is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same is confirmed.
6. The only serious contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation, particularly, with regard to the compensation granted for the disability assessed at 35% as higher. Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced.
7. On perusing the award, this court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal on the above contention for the following reasons:-
(i) The accident in this case happened on 14.9.2002. The injured claimant is aged about 60 years, at the time of accident. He is a carpenter and therefore, the injury will affect his occupation. His physical strength will be affected to some extent.
(ii) In the accident, the claimant suffered fracture on the left ankle, left foot, grievous injuries on the left knee and injury on the upper eye brow. He had taken treatment at Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai, for sometime and he will also more time to recoup his strength after medical treatment.
(iii) P.W.2 Doctor states that because of the injured, the claimant cannot do his work as before as carpenter and this will affect his livelihood and also affect his occupation and income to some extent.
(iv) In this case, no amount was granted towards attender charges, which the claimant is entitled to.
(v) Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the sum of Rs.2,000/- granted towards transport expenses, the sum of Rs.2,000/- granted towards extra nourishment expenses and the sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards pain and suffering are very low. The claimant will be entitled to higher amount.
(vi) The doctor assessed the disability at 35% under Ex.A-8. There is no material produced on behalf of the appellant to state that the disability assessed by the doctor is excessive. The Tribunal, granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the disability, considering the old age, occupation of the claimant and it can be justified.
(vii) In any event, the marginally higher compensation granted towards disability can be adjusted towards attender charges, which is omitted and the lesser amount granted towards transport expenses, extra nourishment expenses and pain and suffering.
(viii) Considering all these aspects, the total compensation granted at Rs.76,000/- does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2002 and the award is of the year 2007.
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 and on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ts
To
The Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.2,
(The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Chennai