Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1556 (MAD)

G. Ramesh v. Deepak Associates and Another

2002-12-10

A.K.RAJAN, P.SATHASIVAM

body2002
Judgment :- A.K.RAJAN, J This appeal has been filed by the claimant who sustained injuries in a road accident that took place on 03.07.1990. In that accident, the claimant sustained fracture of left hand as well as left leg. For that, he made a claim of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. To prove his claim, he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined, but one document was marked as Ex.R.1. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car and passed an award for Rs.31,800/-. Aggrieved by that award, the claimant has preferred this appeal. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the claimant was employed as a cleaner in a lorry and was earning more than Rs.1,500/-, that he was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident, that due to the accident, he suffered permanent disability to an extent of 40%, in respect of which, he has marked the Disability Certificate, Ex.P.11, issued by a competent Ortho-physician, that the Tribunal also has accepted the permanent disability as given in the Certificate and therefore, the permanent disability is 40%, and that the award of Rs.20,000/- as loss of income due to the permanent disability is very much on the lower side and hence it is liable to be increased. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that though the Disability Certificate was marked by P.W.1, the Doctor who gave the same has not been examined and that in the absence of examining the Doctor who gave the Disability Certificate, the same cannot be relied upon. But, the argument of the Counsel for the respondents has force.The respondents have not preferred any appeal against the award. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal accepting the Disability Certificate and granting Rs.20,000/- towards permanent disability, cannot be faulted. 4. From the documentary evidence, it is clear that the claimant sustained three fractures and it is also proved that he took treatment for three months as inpatient and thereafter, for one month as outpatient. But the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufferings. 4. From the documentary evidence, it is clear that the claimant sustained three fractures and it is also proved that he took treatment for three months as inpatient and thereafter, for one month as outpatient. But the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Taking into account the fact that the claimant was hospitalised for more than three months and he was sustained three fractures, we fix Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards pain and sufferings. 5. The Tribunal estimating his income at Rs.1,200/- per month, awarded Rs.4,800/- to the claimant towards loss of income during the period of treatment. There is no reason to interfere with or to alter this finding. 6. For the purpose of medical expenses during the period of four months, we are of the view that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.8,000/- in all. 7. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs.47,800/- as total compensation. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% only from the date of the award. This conclusion of the Tribunal awarding interest only from the date of the award is not acceptable. The claimant is entitled to get interest from the date of the petition, i.e., from 05.10.1990, till the date of payment. 9. With the above modifications enhancing the award of compensation to Rs.47,800/- from Rs.31,800/- and awarding interest at 9% from the date of the petition till the date of payment, this appeal is allowed in part. No costs.