{"id":235827,"date":"2007-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007"},"modified":"2018-11-27T18:47:47","modified_gmt":"2018-11-27T13:17:47","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 22\/06\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\nC.M.A.(MD).No.92 of 2000\nand\nC.M.A.(MD).Nos.93 and 94 of 2000\n\n\nThe Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,\n(Kumbakonak Division II), Ltd.,\nTrichy.\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t.. Appellant in all C.M.As.\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nChinathambi\t\t.. Respondent in C.M.A.No.92\/2000\nSrinivasan\t\t.. Respondent in C.M.A.No.93\/2000\nR.Parameswari\t\t.. Respondent in C.M.A.No.94\/2000\n\n\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles\nAct against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.08.1999 made in\nM.C.O.P.Nos.2642,2673 of 1997 and 185 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents\nClaims Tribunal, (IIIrd Additional Sub Court), Trichy.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t    ...\t\tMr.D.Sivaraman,\n\t\t      \t\tFor Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil\n\n^For Respondents    ...\t\tMr.Saravanan\n\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n\t\n\tBy a common Judgment dated 05.08.1999, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal\n(IIIrd Additional Sub Court), Trichy disposed of three M.C.O.Ps., namely,\nM.C.O.P.Nos.2642 of 1997, 2673 of 1997 and 185 of 1998 and based on the common\nJudgment, separate awards were passed.\n\n\t2. These appeals, namely, C.M.A.Nos.92 to 94 of 2000 are directed against\nthe awards passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.2642 of 1997, 2673 of 1997 and 185 of 1998\nrespectively. Therefore, all the three appeals were jointly heard and a common\nJudgment is pronounced.\n\n\t3. This Judgment shall govern C.M.A.No.92 of 2000 filed against the award\npassed in M.C.O.P.No.2642 of 1997, C.M.A.No.93 of 2000 filed against the award\npassed in M.C.O.P.No.2673 of 1997  and C.M.A.No.94 of 2000 filed against the\naward passed in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 1998.\n\n\n\n\t4. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division II, Trichy\nwhich figured as the sole respondent in all the three M.C.O.Ps. has brought\nforth these appeals challenging the common Judgment and awards passed by the\nTribunal on 05.08.1999.\n\n\t5. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals can be briefly stated\nas under:\n\t(i) The passenger bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation and\nbearing registration No.TN-45-N-0396 met with an accident on 20.05.1997 at about\n09.15 a.m., as it drifted from the road and hit a road side tamarind tree at a\nplace near Government Arts College, Vadugapatty, on its trip from Thuraiyur to\nMusiri. Three of the injured persons, namely Chinnathambi, Srinivasan and\nParameswari preferred claim petitions M.C.O.P.Nos.2642 of 1997, 2673 of 1997 and\n185 of 1998 respectively against the appellant Transport Corporation on the file\nof the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IIIrd Additional Sub Court), Trichy. All\nthe three claimants in their respective claim petitions made uniform averments\nto the effect that the driver of the bus was at fault and it was due to his rash\nand negligent driving of the bus, it hit the road side tamarind tree. In\naddition to the above said common plea regarding the manner in which the\naccident took place, Chinnathambi, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2642 of 1997\ncontended that he was aged about 53 years and was having a monthly income of\nRs.3,000\/- in his occupation as a mason; that as a result of the accident, two\nof his teeth were broken and he sustained multiple grievous injuries all over\nthe body and that the same resulted in permanent disability despite proper\ntreatment. Based on the above said pleading, he prayed for an award against the\nappellant Transport Corporation for a sum of Rs.50,000\/- together with future\ninterest and cost.\n\t(ii) Srinivasan, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2673 of 1997 claimed to have\nearned a sum of Rs.3,000\/- per month in his occupation as a coolie in a mat\nfactory, alleged injury to two teeth, right leg and all over the body which\naccording to him resulted in permanent disability despite proper treatment and\nprayed for an award against the appellant Transport Corporation for a sum of\nRs.50,000\/- together with future interest and cost. \t\n\t(iii) Similarly Parameswari, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 1998\nclaiming to have earned a sum of Rs.1,500\/- per month as a teacher in Mid-day\nMeals Centre at Musiri and alleging that she suffered multiple grievous injuries\nall over the body including fracture at the right shoulder, resulting in\npermanent disability, prayed for an award against the appellant Transport\nCorporation for a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- with future interest and cost.\n\t(iv) In the joint trial conducted before the Tribunal, all the three\nclaimants were examined as P.Ws.1,3 and 4 respectively. Two doctors who issued\ndisability certificates to the claimants were examined as P.Ws.2 and 5. In\naddition, the claimants relied on seven documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.7.\n\t(v) The claims were resisted by the appellant Transport Corporation by\nfiling separate counter statements in all the three M.C.O.Ps. containing almost\nsimilar averments in denial of the petition averments regarding the question of\nnegligence, age, occupation and income of each one of the claimants, the\ninjuries and the alleged disability sustained by each one of them. It was\ncontended further that on seeing a lorry coming in the opposite direction at an\nuncontrollable speed, in an attempt to avoid head on collision with the said\nlorry, the driver of the bus swerved the bus to the left; that while doing so,\nhe could not stop the bus before it proceeded further and hit the road side\ntamarind tree and that the accident became inevitable beyond the control of the\ndriver of the bus. With the further contention that the amount claimed in each\none of M.C.O.Ps. was highly excessive and exorbitant, the appellant Transport\nCorporation had prayed for dismissal of all the three M.C.O.Ps. with cost.\n\t(vi) The driver of the bus was examined as the sole witness (R.W.1) and no\ndocument was marked on the side of the appellant Transport Corporation which\nfigured as the respondent in all the three M.C.O.Ps.\n\t(vii) At the conclusion of enquiry, the Tribunal by a common Judgment\ndated 05.08.1999 held that the driver of the bus was at fault, fixed the\nliability on the appellant Transport Corporation and awarded a sum of\nRs.50,000\/- each to the claimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.2642 and 2673 of 1997 and a sum\nof Rs.90,000\/- to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 1998 with future interest at\nthe rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim till realisation and costs.\n\n\t6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant Transport Corporation has brought\nforth all these three appeals before this Court.\n\n\t7. It is true that the appellant Transport Corporation has incorporated a\nnumber of grounds in the memorandum of appeal, challenging the finding of the\nTribunal on the question of negligence holding the driver of the bus to be at\nfault and thus fastening the liability on the appellant Transport Corporation to\npay damages to the claimants. But when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the\nlearned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that he could not advance any\nargument attacking the said finding and confined his arguments to the grounds of\nattack on the award in respect of quantum of compensation alone. Therefore,\nthere is no need for traversing the pleading and evidence in respect of the\nquestion of negligence and the finding of the Tribunal in this regard shall have\nto be confirmed.\n\n\t8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal fixed\nthe amount of compensation in each one of M.C.O.Ps. arbitrarily without\nfollowing the recognised methods of assessment of compensation; that the award\nof a sum of Rs.10,000\/- to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2642 of 1997 and a sum of\nRs.15,000\/- to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2673 of 1997 towards medical expenses\nin the absence of production of any medical bill could not be sustained; that\nthe award of a sum of Rs.15,000\/- to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 1998\ntowards medical expenses was not supported by any medical bill or voucher; that\nthe claimant in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 1998 herself gave evidence to the effect that\nshe spent only a sum of Rs.5,000\/- towards medical expenses and hence the award\nof a sum of Rs.15,000\/- towards medical expenses could not be justified; that\nthe amounts awarded for permanent disability to the claimants were highly\nexcessive and exorbitant besides being arbitrary and that hence the total amount\nof compensation awarded to each one of the claimants deserved drastic reduction\nin the hands of this Court.\n\n\t9. The learned counsel for the respondents\/claimants would admit that the\namounts awarded as compensation for medical expenses could not be sustained, as\nthe same are not supported by evidence. But at the same time, he would contend\nthat a lesser amount could be awarded towards medical expenses instead of\ndisallowing the claim in its entirety; that the deficit amount could be made-up\nby enhancing the amounts awarded towards pain and suffering which according to\nhim are very low and not commensurate with the nature of injuries; that the\namounts awarded towards permanent disability require no reduction, as they\nrepresent reasonable compensation and that if such adjustments are made, the\nawards passed by the Tribunal can be sustained without any reduction or\nmodification.\n\n\t10. Let us now consider whether the amount awarded as compensation to each\none of the claimants should be reduced in the light of the rival submissions\nmade on either side?.\n\tThe amount claimed by Chinnathambi, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2642 of\n1997 is Rs.50,000\/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation as prayed for and\ndirected the appellant Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.50,000\/- with\nthe following details:\n\n\tCompensation for permanent\n\tdisability\t\t\t= Rs.35,000\/-\n\t\n\tCompensation for medical\n\texpenses\t\t\t= Rs.10,000\/-\n\n\tCompensation for pain and\n\tsuffering\t\t\t= Rs. 3,000\/-\n\n\tCompensation for expenditure\n\tincurred on extra-nourishment\t= Rs. 2,000\/-\n\n\t\t\t\t\t-------------\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tTotal\t\t\t= Rs.50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————-\n<\/p>\n
\t11. P.W.1 as per his own statement was aged about 53 years as on the date
\nof claim. P.W.5 clinically examined P.W.1 and on such a clinical examination,
\ncertified that two teeth on the upper jaw and one molar on the lower jaw were
\nfound missing and altogether seven teeth (three in the upper jaw and four in the
\nlower jaw) had lost their grip and were found with mobility. Ex.A.6 is the
\ndisability certificate issued by P.W.5 for P.W.1 – Chinnathambi, the claimant in
\nM.C.O.P.No.2642 of 1997. He has assessed the disability suffered by P.W.1 at 30%
\nand certified it to be permanent. At the same time, P.W.5 would admit that as
\nper wound certificate only two teeth were found missing. Ex.A.2 is the wound
\ncertificate in which loss of two teeth alone has been noted. The loss of one
\nmore tooth and the mobility found in seven more teeth can be attributed to old
\nage or any other costs. Hence this Court is of the considered opinion that
\nassessing the permanent disability caused by the accident at 20% shall meet the
\nends of justice. As the claimant was aged about 53 years as on the date of
\naccident, awarding a sum of Rs.20,000\/- for permanent disability (at the rate of
\nRs.1,000\/- per 1% of disability) shall be reasonable.  On the other hand, the
\nTribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.35,000\/- as compensation for permanent
\ndisability which requires reduction to Rs.20,000\/-. Hence the same shall be
\nreduced to Rs.20,000\/-. A sum of Rs.2,000\/- awarded by the Tribunal towards
\nextra-nourishment is quite reasonable and the same does not require any
\nrevision. On the other hand, the award of a sum of Rs.3,000\/- for pain and
\nsuffering is slightly on the lower side and the same can be enhanced to
\nRs.5,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. It is true that P.W.1 – Chinnathambi has not produced any medical bill
\nor voucher evidencing any amount spent for medical treatment. Even then, the
\nclaim for compensation under the head of medical expenses cannot be negatived
\naltogether. Ex.A.2 – wound certificate shows that he was given treatment at the
\nGovernment Hospital free of cost. Despite the said fact, it can be assumed that
\nsome of the medicines could have been purchased at private medical shops.
\nCalculating a sum of Rs.1,000\/- for the same shall be quite reasonable. As it is
\nevident from Ex.A.2 that P.W.1 lost two teeth in the accident, the necessity to
\nfix denture can be taken note of, awarding a sum of Rs.5,000\/- for the same
\nshall be quite reasonable. Altogether a sum of Rs.6,000\/- alone shall be the
\nreasonable compensation for medical expenses. Hence a sum of Rs.10,000\/- awarded
\nby the Tribunal towards medical expenses shall be reduced to Rs.6,000\/-. The
\nTribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of earning from the date of
\naccident during the period required for treatment and rest. Taking into
\nconsideration, the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.1, it can be assumed that
\nhe might have needed rest for a period of two months during which period he
\nwould have incurred total loss of income. P.W.1 claims to have earned a sum of
\nRs.3,000\/- per month at the rate of Rs.100\/- per day before the accident in his
\noccupation as a mason. No one on earth can be assumed to work without periodical
\nrest. Assuming that P.W.1 might have required five days’ rest per month, his
\nmonthly income prior to the accident could be assessed at Rs.2,500\/-.
\nConsequently, a compensation for loss of income for two months from the date of
\naccident is assessed at Rs.5,000\/-. In all, the total amount of compensation
\nthat can be awarded to P.W.1 is fixed at Rs.38,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court comes to the conclusion that the
\ncompensation awarded by the Tribunal to P.W.1 is liable to be reduced to
\nRs.38,000\/- from Rs.50,000\/-. To this extent, C.M.A.No.92 of 2000 succeeds and
\nthe award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.2642 of 1997 deserves to be modified to
\nthe extent indicated above. In all other respects, subject to the above said
\nmodification, the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.2642 of 1997 deserves to
\nbe confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. So far as P.W.3 – Srinivasan, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2673 of 1997
\nis concerned, the Tribunal has awarded compensation as prayed for and directed
\nthe appellant Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.50,000\/- as compensation
\ntogether with interest and cost with the following details:\n<\/p>\n
\tCompensation for permanent
\n\tdisability\t\t\t= Rs.30,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tCompensation for medical
\n\texpenses\t\t\t= Rs.15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tCompensation for pain and
\n\tsuffering\t\t\t= Rs. 3,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tCompensation for expenditure
\n\tincurred on extra-nourishment\t= Rs. 2,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————-\n<\/p>\n
\t\tTotal\t\t\t= Rs.50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————-\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Ex.A.4 is the wound certificate. Three injuries have been noted in
\nEx.A.4. They are:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(i) Bleeding in the gum on the right side of the lower jaw;\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) first and second incisors (upper jaw or lower jaw has not been
\nspecified) were found shaking; and\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) severe pain on the lower jaw.”\n<\/p>\n
\tOut of the three injuries noted in the wound certificate, injury No.2
\nalone has been certified to be grievous and the other two injuries have been
\ncertified to be simple in nature. P.W.5, who clinically examined P.W.3 on
\n17.06.1999, found two molars on the upper jaw missing and three teeth on the
\nlower jaw were found with mobility and issued the disability certificate marked
\nas Ex.A.7 certifying that P.W.3 – Srinivasan had suffered permanent disability
\nto the tune of 20%. No doubt, the teeth certified to be found shaking in Ex.A.4
\ndo not correspond to the teeth certified to be missing in Ex.A.7. But as Ex.A.4\n<\/p>\n
– wound certificate reveals the injury to the gum and severe pain on the jaws,
\nthe loss of two molars as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the
\naccident cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, the assessment of disability at 20%
\nmade by P.W.5, a qualified dentist, has got to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Admittedly, P.W.3 – Srinivasan had crossed the age of 40 even on the
\ndate of accident. Therefore, awarding a sum of Rs.20,000\/- for permanent
\ndisability (at the rate of Rs.1,000\/- per 1% of disability) shall be reasonable.
\nThe Tribunal on the other hand, without assigning any reason awarded a sum of
\nRs.30,000\/- under the head of compensation for permanent disability. Hence the
\nsame is definitely excessive and deserves to be reduced to Rs.20,000\/-.  A sum
\nof Rs.2,000\/- awarded by the Tribunal towards extra-nourishment is quite
\nreasonable and the same does not require any revision. On the other hand, the
\naward of a sum of Rs.3,000\/- for pain and suffering is slightly on the lower
\nside and the same can be enhanced to Rs.5,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. It is true that P.W.3 – Srinivasan has not produced any medical bill
\nor voucher evidencing any amount spent for medical treatment. Even then, the
\nclaim for compensation under the head of medical expenses cannot be negatived
\naltogether. Ex.A.4 – wound certificate shows that he was given treatment at the
\nGovernment Hospital free of cost. Despite the said fact,  it can be assumed that
\nsome of the medicines could have been purchased at private medical shops.
\nCalculating a sum of Rs.1,000\/- for the same shall be quite reasonable. As it is
\nevident from Ex.A.4 that P.W.3 lost two molars in the accident, the necessity to
\nfix denture can be taken note of. Awarding a sum of Rs.5,000\/- for the same
\nshall be quite reasonable. Altogether a sum of Rs.6,000\/- alone shall be the
\nreasonable compensation for medical expenses. Hence a sum of Rs.15,000\/- awarded
\nby the Tribunal towards medical expenses shall be reduced to Rs.6,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of earning from
\nthe date of accident during the period required for treatment and rest. Taking
\ninto consideration the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.3, it can be assumed
\nthat he might have needed rest for a period of two months, during which period
\nhe would have incurred total loss of income. P.W.3 claims to have earned a sum
\nof Rs.3,000\/- per month before the accident in his occupation as a coolie. No
\none on earth can be assumed to work without periodical rest. Assuming that P.W.3
\nmight have required five days’ rest per month, his monthly income prior to the
\naccident could be assessed at Rs.2,500\/-. Consequently, a compensation for loss
\nof income for two months from the date of accident is assessed at Rs.5,000\/-. In
\nall, the total amount of compensation that can be awarded to P.W.1 is fixed at
\nRs.38,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court comes to the conclusion that the
\ncompensation awarded by the Tribunal to P.W.3 is liable to be reduced to
\nRs.38,000\/- from Rs.50,000\/-. To this extent, C.M.A.No.93 of 2000 succeeds and
\nthe award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.2673 of 1997 deserves to be modified to
\nthe extent indicated above. In all other respects, subject to the above said
\nmodification, the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.2673 of 1997 deserves to
\nbe confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. P.W.4 – Parameswari, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 1998 had
\nclaimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- as compensation as against which the Tribunal has
\nawarded a sum of Rs.90,000\/- with the following details:\n<\/p>\n
\tCompensation for permanent
\n\tdisability\t\t\t= Rs.70,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tCompensation for medical
\n\texpenses\t\t\t= Rs.15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tCompensation for pain and
\n\tsuffering\t\t\t= Rs. 3,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tCompensation for expenditure
\n\tincurred on extra-nourishment\t= Rs. 2,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————-\n<\/p>\n
\t\tTotal\t\t\t= Rs.90,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————-\n<\/p>\n
\t21. Ex.A.5 is the wound certificate of P.W.4 – Parameswari. A contusion
\nover the left shoulder measuring 2 cm x 2 cm involving the fracture of the left
\nclavicle and pain in the left shoulder are the two injuries noted in the wound
\ncertificate. Out of them, the first alone has been certified to be grievous in
\nnature. From Ex.A.5, it is obvious that after first aid treatment on the date of
\naccident at Government Hospital, Musiri,  she was referred to the Government
\nHospital, Trichy. From the evidence of P.W.4, it is clear that she got admitted
\nin the Government Hospital, Trichy and took treatment there as an inpatient for
\nthree days. Even though P.W.4 in her evidence claimed to have taken treatment at
\na private hospital after having been discharged from the Government Hospital,
\nTrichy, except  the interested testimony of P.W.4, no other evidence is
\navailable in proof of her claim that she got treatment in any private hospital.
\nNo medical bill or voucher has been produced to support her claim for damages on
\nthe head of medical expenses. In spite of the fact that no medical bill has been
\nproduced, the Tribunal seems to have awarded a sum of Rs.15,000\/- as
\ncompensation for medical expenses which cannot be sustained as rightly contended
\nby the learned counsel for the appellant. Even P.W.4 herself would state in her
\nevidence that she spent only a sum of Rs.5,000\/- for her treatment in the
\nprivate hospital. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
\nappellant that the Tribunal has arbitrarily awarded a sum of Rs.15,000\/- as
\ncompensation for medical expenses to P.W.4 has got to be countenanced. While
\nholding that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding a sum of
\nRs.15,000\/- as compensation for medical expenses without the claim being
\nsupported by any medical bill or voucher, this Court is of the considered view
\nthat the claim under the said head cannot be rejected altogether. If the nature
\nof injuries sustained by P.W.4 is taken into consideration, it can be assumed
\nthat some medicines which were not available in the Government Hospital would
\nhave been purchased at private medical stores, even though the treatment was
\nprovided at the Government Hospital free of cost. P.W.4 has sustained fracture
\nof the left clavicle. Therefore, compensation for medical expenses to P.W.4 –
\nParameswari can be awarded to the extent of Rs.5,000\/- alone as spoken to by
\nherself in her testimony.   Hence a sum of Rs.15,000\/- awarded by the Tribunal
\ntowards medical expenses shall be reduced to Rs.5,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. Though the fracture found on the left clavicle has been cured after
\ntreatment, there is mal-union and restriction of shoulder-movements as certified
\nby P.W.2 in Ex.A.3 – disability certificate. The movement of the left shoulder
\nis restricted to 0 to 85 as against the normal flexion of 0 to 180. P.W.2 has
\ncertified the same to be permanent disability and assessed the same at 36%. The
\nrestriction of movement of the left shoulder found at present can be rectified
\nto some extent by doing proper physical exercise and physiotherapy treatment.
\nTherefore, the assessment of disability at 36%, according to the opinion of this
\nCourt, is slightly on the higher side and that fixing the permanent disability
\nat 30% shall be just and proper in this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. The Tribunal, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
\nappellant, has arbitrarily fixed the amount of compensation for permanent
\ndisability at Rs.70,000\/-. It has failed to assign any reason. As per her own
\nevidence, she was aged about 25 as on the date of accident. In case of award of
\nlump sum payment for permanent disability, age of the claimant shall have an
\nimportant role to play. Awarding compensation at a fixed rate in all cases
\nwithout taking into account the age of the claimant shall result injustice, as
\nthe same will amount to treating unequals equally. The compensation for
\npermanent disability in a given case may range from Rs.1,000\/- to Rs.2,000\/- per
\n1% of disability depending upon the age of the claimant. The lower rate shall be
\napplied in case of aged persons and the higher rate shall be applied in case of
\nyounger persons. Therefore, in respect of P.W.4 – Parameswari, compensation for
\npermanent disability can be awarded at the rate of Rs.2,000\/- per 1% of
\ndisability. So the reasonable amount that can be awarded for permanent
\ndisability to P.W.4 shall be Rs.60,000\/-. Therefore, the same can be reduced to
\nRs.60,000\/- from Rs.70,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. A sum of Rs.2,000\/- awarded by the Tribunal towards extra-nourishment
\nis quite reasonable and the same does not require any revision. P.W.4 sustained
\nfracture of left clavicle. Therefore, she might have endured great pain and
\nsuffering during treatment due to the fracture. The movement of left shoulder is
\nrestricted and painful. Therefore, in future also the pain and suffering will
\ncontinue. If all these factors are taken into account, one can come to a
\ndefinite conclusion that the award of a sum of Rs.3,000\/- for pain and suffering
\nis inadequate. Enhancing the same to a sum of Rs.7,000\/- shall meet the ends of
\njustice. As per the evidence of P.W.4 – Parameswari, she was in receipt of a sum
\nof Rs.935\/- per month as a nursery school teacher, the same can be rounded to
\nRs.1,000\/- and a monthly income prior to the accident can be taken as Rs.1,000\/-
\n. Assuming that P.W.4 – Parameswai would have needed at least two months’ time
\nfor treatment and complete rest, some amount would have been awarded for the
\nsame. Hence, awarding  a sum of Rs.2,000\/- towards total loss of income during
\nthe said period shall be reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. For the foregoing reasons, this Court comes to the conclusion that the
\ncompensation awarded by the Tribunal to P.W.4 is liable to be reduced to
\nRs.76,000\/- from Rs.90,000\/-. To this extent, C.M.A.No.94 of 2000 succeeds and
\nthe award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 1998 deserves to be modified to
\nthe extent indicated above. In all other respects, subject to the above said
\nmodification, the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 1998 deserves to be
\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. In the result,<\/p>\n
\t(i) C.M.A.No.92 of 2000 is allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal
\npassed in M.C.O.P.No.2642 of 1997 is hereby reduced to Rs.38,000\/- from
\nRs.50,000\/-. In all other aspects, subject to the above said modification, the
\naward of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to
\npayment of costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)  C.M.A.No.93 of 2000 is allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal
\npassed in M.C.O.P.No.2673 of 1997 is hereby reduced to Rs.38,000\/- from
\nRs.50,000\/-. In all other aspects, subject to the above said modification, the
\naward of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to
\npayment of costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)  C.M.A.No.94 of 2000 is allowed in part and the award of the
\nTribunal passed in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 1998 is hereby reduced to Rs.76,000\/- from
\nRs.90,000\/-. In all other aspects, subject to the above said modification, the
\naward of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to
\npayment of costs.\n<\/p>\n
SML<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
\n(IIIrd Additional Sub Court),
\nTrichy.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22\/06\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.(MD).No.92 of 2000 and C.M.A.(MD).Nos.93 and 94 of 2000 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonak Division II), Ltd., Trichy. .. Appellant in all C.M.As. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235827","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-27T13:17:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-27T13:17:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2919,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-27T13:17:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-27T13:17:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-27T13:17:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007"},"wordCount":2919,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007","name":"The Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-27T13:17:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-chinathambi-on-22-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs Chinathambi on 22 June, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235827","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235827"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235827\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}