Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3830 (MAD)

Balraj v. Jeganathan & Another

2008-10-22

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

body2008
Judgment :- This appeal is filed at the instance of the claimant against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karaikal in M.A.C.T.O.P.No. 66 of 2002 praying for enhancement of compensation. 2. The Tribunal after having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record had passed an award of Rs.40,000/-with interest at 9% p.a. as against the claim of Rs.2,4,00,000/- 3. The case of the parties before the tribunal in brief is as follows:- .(a) That on 11.02.2002 at about 4.45 p.m. when the claimant was proceeding on P.K.Salai from his residence on his motor cycle bearing Regn. NO PYK 7839, near Karaikal New Bus Stand, a bus bearing Regn. No. TN 49 N 0819 belonging to the first respondent transport corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against him. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and has been admitted to the Government Hospital, Karaikal as inpatient. He sustained permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the course of the accident. Hence, he claimed Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation for the injuries and disablement sustained by him due to the road traffic accident which took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the transport Corporation. .(b) The respondent Transport Corporation resisted the claim and contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle. The petitioner is put to strict proof that he was possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. It is for the claimant who rode the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brake in order to avert hit against a cow which was crossing the road and fell down and sustained injuries. The driver of the bus was no way responsible for the accident. Hence, the claim is liable to be dismissed. 4. This appeal is preferred by the aggrieved claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. Although, a sum of Rs.2,55,000/-was claimed before the tribunal, the claimant, confined his claim to Rs.90,000/- in this appeal, the sum of Rs.40,000/-awarded by the tribunal is questioned and necessary court fees has been paid thereon. The respondent Transport Corporation has not preferred any appeal questioning the decision on the negligence nor on the quantum of compensation. 5. None appears for the first respondent despite notice. The respondent Transport Corporation has not preferred any appeal questioning the decision on the negligence nor on the quantum of compensation. 5. None appears for the first respondent despite notice. Notice to 2nd respondent dispensed with, since he remained ex parte before the tribunal itself. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the tribunal had not properly considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the claimant and awarded a meagre sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation which is not in accordance with law. The claimant was working as a School Teacher at the time of accident and he could not discharge his duty due to the disability sustained by him in the road accident during the period when he was undergoing treatment. However, the tribunal had lost sight of the above said fact and consequently, awarded only a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards permanent disability; Rs.15,000/- towards pain and sufferings; a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.1,500/- each towards extra nutrition and transport charges respectively, in all a sum of Rs.40,000/-was awarded, which is very meagre. He would further submit that that petitioner suffered a lot due to fracture on his collar bone and head injuries besides other simple injuries and he was also permanently disabled to the tune of 20%. Therefore, the award of Rs.40,000/- passed by the tribunal requires modification suitably enhancing the compensation. 7. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. On going through the available records and the impugned award, it is evident that the claimant sustained fracture on his collar bone apart from grievous injury on his head and other simple injuries in the road accident. Ex.A.4 is the Copy of the Accident Register. Therefore, on taking into consideration the nature of injuries, I am of the view that the award of compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and sufferings does not require any enhancement. Similarly, on taking into consideration of 20% permanent disability as certified by the Doctor in Ex.A.5, if a sum of Rs.1,000/- is awarded for every one percent of disablement, the award of Rs.20,000/-towards permanent disability too does not require any enhancement. Similarly, on taking into consideration of 20% permanent disability as certified by the Doctor in Ex.A.5, if a sum of Rs.1,000/- is awarded for every one percent of disablement, the award of Rs.20,000/-towards permanent disability too does not require any enhancement. However, on considering the personal inconvenience caused to the claimant due to the disability sustained by him in the road accident, a just and reasonable award of Rs.10,000/-could be awarded towards loss of amenities. 8. Further, the tribunal had failed to consider the claim towards damages caused to the motor cycle. The claimant carried out repair and altogether he spent Rs.3644/-towards repair charges. The claim is supported by Ex.A10 Quotations and Cash Receipts. Therefore, a sum of Rs.3650/- could be awarded towards Damage to the motor cycle. Further, it is evident from Ex.A9 Cash Receipts( Series) to the tune of Rs.1,100/-spent on purchase of medicines. The trial court had awarded a lump sum of Rs.2,000/-towards medical expenses. On considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the course of treatment, I am of the view that a fixed sum of Rs.3,350/-towards medical expenses and attendant charges could awarded to the claimant. Thus in all the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.15,000/-. The head-wise details of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled are furnished here below:- 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs throughout appeal. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.55,000/-and the appellant is entitled to interest at 7.5% per annum for the enhanced compensation of Rs.15,000/- from the date of petition till the date of deposit by the first respondent in full. Time for payment 6 weeks. The order of the tribunal in other respects shall stand maintained.