IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 9.3.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.554 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Rangapuram, Vellore. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. Saraswathy. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 6.9.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.544 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar. For appellant : Mr.N.Anand ----- JUDGMENT
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 6.9.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.544 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar.
2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 24.7.2002. The injured claimant Saraswathy, aged 22 years, an agricultural coolie, was walking into the Cheyyar bus stand on the left side of the road. There was a parked ambassador car. While she was crossing the ambassador car, the bus of the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the lady and her child and caused the grievous injuries to the lady claimant. Immediately after the accident, she was taken to Government Hospital, Cheyyar. Thereafter, Government Hospital, Kancheepuram. She filed a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries suffered in the accident.
3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Balakrishnan, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.P-1 is the photocopy of FIR,
Ex.P-2 is the copy of wound certificate,
Ex.P-3 is the medical record issued by the Government Hospital,
Kancheepuram,
Ex.P-4 is the disability certificate assessing the disability at 30% and
Ex.P-5 is the X-Ray.
On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal, Mr.Dakshinamoorthy, 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. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest per annum:-
Sl.No.
Head
Amount granted by the Tribunal
1
For fracture
Rs.20,000/-
2
For two simple injuries (Rs.3,000/- each)
Rs. 6,000/-
3
Pain and suffering
Rs. 5,000/-
4
Transport expenses
Rs. 4,000/-
5
Disability assessed at 30%
Rs.30,000/-
Total
Rs.65,000/-
5. As against the plea of the claimant that the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was rash and negligent and caused the accident and injury, the driver of the bus deposed on behalf of the appellant and stated that the lady claimant attempted to get down from the bus and got caught between the bus and the ambassador car and consequently the lady claimant suffered injury. This evidence of R.W.1 was not accepted by the Tribunal on the ground that in cross-examination, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus has accepted that he pleaded guilty of the offence and paid a fine of Rs.350/- before the criminal court on the charge of rash and negligent driving. There is no material to show that the injured lady claimant had travelled in the bus. There is no other supporting oral or documentary evidence to show that the injured lady claimant was attempting to get down from the bus and by the nature of accident, the negligence can be attributed on the part of the injured claimant. In view of the clear finding of the Tribunal based on the cross examination of R.W.1, the driver of the bus, this court is unable to accept the plea with regard to plea of negligence on the part of the claimant and the finding of the Tribunal stands confirmed.
6. The next issue is relating to compensation. The injured claimant suffered grievous injury and fracture of hip bone and there was dislocation of the right knee. This is supported by the wound certificate Ex.P-2, medical record Ex.P-3, disability certificate Ex.P-4 and X-Ray Ex.P-5. The Doctor, who was examined as P.W.2 has opined that there is a malunion of hip bone and leg movement is severely affected and that is recorded in paragraph 10 of the award of the Tribunal. The injured claimant is an agricultural coolie and 22 years old at the time of accident. The injury to the hip region and to the knee will seriously affected her strength and to some extent there will be a loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence. She is a mother of a small child. She needs to take care of the family and nourish herself as well as the child. The Tribunal has not granted any amount for loss of income during the period of treatment or for extra nourishment. The injured young lady will need an attender to take care of her till she recovered fully. However, no amount was granted towards attender charges. The Tribunal in this case has granted a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering undergone by the injured claimant aged 22 years who was also carrying a small child at the time of accident. Therefore, this court has to consider as to whether the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.65,000/- is just and reasonable.
7. As observed earlier, no amount has been granted for loss of income atleast for three months during the period of treatment and convalescence which can be around to Rs.10,000/-. No amount has been granted towards attender charges and towards extra nourishment expenses. For pain and suffering meagre amount has been granted. Therefore, the sum of Rs.20,000/- granted towards fracture and the sum of Rs.6,000/- granted towards two simple injuries can be adjusted on various heads which are omitted. Considering all these aspects, the total compensation granted at Rs.65,000/- 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 2008.
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 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Cheyyar