Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1457 (MAD)

The Director of Sericulture v. Raja & Another

2008-04-29

S.TAMILVANAN

body2008
Judgment :- Both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred against the Common Judgment and Decree, dated 20.07.2006 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.224 of 2004 and 223 of 2004 respectively on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court, Dharmapuri. 2. As per the case of the respondents / claimants, on 27.06.2003, when the claimants were riding in the motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TS 23 N 3516 to Thalavaialli village from Ommalur on the Salem-Dharmapuri main road, a van bearing Registration No.TN 29 G 0164 belongs to the appellant was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, due to which, the respondents herein sustained various bodily injuries and also permanent disability, due to the fracture sustained by them. The respondents / claimants in both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal were admitted in the Government Hospital and then in a private hospital. In support of their contentions, the respondents 1 and 2 were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2, apart from examining the doctors, who issued disability certificate, after examining the respondents / claimants as P.W.3 and P.W.4. In support of the contention of the respondents / claimants, Exs.A.1 to A.17 were marked. Ex.A.1 is the copy of the FIR registered by the police, after the motor accident. After the motor accident, Motor Vehicles Inspector inspected the vehicle and filed his report, Ex.A.3. The Driving License relating to P. Raja, respondent in C.M.A.No.2806 of 2007 has been marked as Ex.P.5. It is seen that the respondents / claimants have also produced copy of the wound certificates, documents relating to medical expenses and the treatment taken for the fracture sustained by them. 3. The Tribunal, only based on the evidence available on record, fixed the liability on the appellant, as there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the van and therefore, the quantum of compensation alone is in question in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 4. The respondent / claimant in C.M.A.No.2806 of 2007 Raja was aged about 27 years. As per the evidence available on record, he was doing agricultural work and milk vending business and thereby earning a sum of Rs.3,000/-per month. As per the wound certificate, dated 01.01.2004 marked as Ex.A.9, the respondent / claimant sustained various injuries on his right leg, left hand, left leg and sustained fracture on his right leg. As per the evidence available on record, he was doing agricultural work and milk vending business and thereby earning a sum of Rs.3,000/-per month. As per the wound certificate, dated 01.01.2004 marked as Ex.A.9, the respondent / claimant sustained various injuries on his right leg, left hand, left leg and sustained fracture on his right leg. As per the evidence of the doctor, P.Ws.3 and 4. According to the said claimant, after the motor accident, he got treatment in St.Johns Hospital, Bangalore. In support of his contention, he produced Exs.P.10 to P.12, Admission record issued by the hospital authorities, discharge record and the bills. As per the evidence of he Doctor, Ex.P.17, Disability Certificate, the aforesaid respondent / claimant, sustained malunion of the fractured bone and accordingly, the disability was assessed at 25%. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards transport charges, for Nutritious Food, Rs.3,000/-, For pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/-, for permanent disability of 25%, Rs.25,000/-, for loss of happiness and amenities, Rs.20,000/-and towards medical expenses, Rs.15,675/- and totally, a sum of Rs.85,675/-has been awarded. Though the Tribunal has awarded the compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of happiness, each Rs.20,000/- disproportionately, it is seen that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is only just and reasonable. 5. The respondent / claimant in C.M.A.No.287 of 2007, Chinnapaiyan, aged about 27 years, on the date of accident was an agricultural worker, apart from doing milk vending business and was earning Rs.3,000/-per month. As per the finding of the Tribunal, due to the motor accident, the said respondent / claimant lost his teeth in his lower jaw, after the respondent / claimant had taken treatment in Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, subsequently was given treatment by the Doctors, P.W.3 and P.W.4. He filed M.C.O.P, seeking a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The X-Ray taken to find out the fracture of the respondent / claimant was marked as Ex.P.14. He was admitted in the Venkateswara Hospital, Dharmapuri, as inpatient for two days, for which, Ex.P.7 has been produced. He spent Rs.8,854/-and got treatment on 29.07.2003 from one Dr. Senthilnathan and as per the Disability Certificate, Ex.P.13 issued by Dr. Thiruvengadam, who was examined as P.W.3, the respondent Chinnapaiyan sustained permanent disability at 35%. He was admitted in the Venkateswara Hospital, Dharmapuri, as inpatient for two days, for which, Ex.P.7 has been produced. He spent Rs.8,854/-and got treatment on 29.07.2003 from one Dr. Senthilnathan and as per the Disability Certificate, Ex.P.13 issued by Dr. Thiruvengadam, who was examined as P.W.3, the respondent Chinnapaiyan sustained permanent disability at 35%. Considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, for Nutritious Food, Rs.3,000/-, towards medical expenses, Rs.8,855/-, for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/-, for 35% permanent disability, Rs.35,000/- and for loss of happiness and amenities, Rs.20,000/-and thus totally a sum of Rs.88,855 has been awarded. In this case also, the Tribunal has awarded for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- and for loss of happiness and amenities, Rs.20,000/-. On both heads, the Tribunal cannot award compensation. Though the Tribunal has not awarded compensation in the appropriate heads, as per the Motor Vehicles Act, it is seen that the Tribunal has awarded only a just and reasonable compensation of Rs.88,855/- and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be construed as exorbitant or on the higher side. 6. As the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the impugned Judgment and Decree is just and reasonable, I am of the view that there is no need for this court to interfere with the same. 7. In the result, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 20.07.2006 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.224 of 2004 and 223 of 2004 respectively, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court, Dharmapuri, the appeals are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.