Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 596 (MAD)

M. Ravi v. M. Rajamanickam & Another

2008-02-19

R.BANUMATHI

body2008
Judgment :- Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.34,620/- for the injuries sustained by the Appellant-Claimant, the Appellant has preferred this Appeal seeking for enhancement. 2. Relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this Appeal are as follows:- On 010. 1997 – 14.45 hours the petitioner was riding Bajaj M80 motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-09-W 0361 from Vadapalani to Virugambakkam along Kalaignar Karunanidhi nagar. While he was proceeding opposite to Raghavendra Agencies, the motorycle bearing registration No.TN-22 7243 driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Bajaj M80. Due to the accident the Claimant has sustained fracture in right zygoma, fracture in nasal bone, head injury and ,multiple injuries all over the body. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-22 7243, the Appellant-Claimant has filed petition U/s.166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-. 3. Opposing the claim, the Insurance Company has filed Counter stating that the accident was due to the negligence of the victim whose failure to observe the rules of road resulting in the accident. The Insurance Co. has also raised a plea of contributory negligence and alleged that the liability has to be apportioned with greater percentage on the Claimant. The Insurance Co. has also disputed the age, occupation and income of the Claimant and percentage of disability. 4. Before the Tribunal, the Claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.J.R.R.Thiagarajan was examined as P.W.2. Ex.P.1 to P.9 were marked. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evience, Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the first Respondent and held that the first Respondent and the second Respondent-Insurance Co., are liable to pay compensation to the Claimant. Having regard to the nature of injuries and observing 35% of disability is exaggerated, Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.34,620/-payable with interest at 9% p.a. 5. Challenging the quantum of compensation the learned counsel Mr.N.M.Muthurajan, appearing for the Claimant has submitted that the Claimant has suffered permanent disability at 35% due to nasal bone injury and head injury and without taking into consideration, Tribunal has awarded a very low amount for permanent disability. Challenging the quantum of compensation the learned counsel Mr.N.M.Muthurajan, appearing for the Claimant has submitted that the Claimant has suffered permanent disability at 35% due to nasal bone injury and head injury and without taking into consideration, Tribunal has awarded a very low amount for permanent disability. It was further submitted that the injured Claimant was in the hospital as inpatient for 12 days and whileso, Tribunal has awarded very low amount of Rs.500/-for transport to hospital and extra nourishment and Rs.2000/-for pain and suffering. The learned counsel for the Appellant has prayed for substantial increase in the compensation amount awarded. 6. In response, the learned counsel Mr.G.Kathirvelu, appearing for the Second Respondent-Insurance Co. has submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same cannot be interfered with. 7. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail as to how the accident had occurred, who is responsible for the accident and who is liable to pay the compensation, it is for the reason the Tribunal has recorded the findings in favour of the Claimant. Further, these findings are not under challenge. Only the quantum of compensation is in dispute. 8. In the accident while the Claimant was driving his motorcycle, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.TN-22 7243 hit against his motorcycle. Due to the accident the Claimant had fallen down and sustained fracture injury in his right zygoma, fracture in nasal bones, head injuries and multiple injuries all over the body. Because of fracture in the nasal bone, there was watery discharge from the nose. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that after the accident, he was admitted in a private hospital where he had taken treatment from 10. 1997 to 110. 1997. From Ex.P.1 discharge summary, it is seen that the Claimant was treated for head injury, nasal bone injury. There was also infra orbital laceration and right eye subconjunctival haemarrahage and frontal laceration. For correction of nasal bones, surgery was done on 110. 1997 under General Anesthesia. P.W.1 has stated that even after treatment, he continues to have pain and suffering in the nasal bone and there is continuous watering from the nose. P.W.1 has further stated that because of the injuries, he is frequently getting headache and become forgetful. 9. P.W.2 Dr. Thiagarajan had examined the Claimant and assessed the permanent disability at 35%. P.W.1 has stated that even after treatment, he continues to have pain and suffering in the nasal bone and there is continuous watering from the nose. P.W.1 has further stated that because of the injuries, he is frequently getting headache and become forgetful. 9. P.W.2 Dr. Thiagarajan had examined the Claimant and assessed the permanent disability at 35%. In his evidence P.W.2 has stated that the nasal bridge is depressed and narrowed, right lower eye lid is damaged and watering from the right eye. P.W.2 has also noticed that the Claimant is suffering from continual pain due to the injuries. P.W.2 has stated that due to the injuries, the Claimant might have frequent head ache. 10. The Claimant had taken treatment as inpatient in the hospital for nearly 10 days. While so, the Tribunal appears to have awarded only Rs.2,000/-for pain and suffering and Rs.500/- for transport to hospital and extra nourishment. Though, P.W.2 has assessed the permanent disability at 35%, Tribunal has appears to have awarded Rs.15,000/- for permanent disability. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases is to compensate the injuries sustained by the Claimant. One cannot put back the Claimant back again into his original position. But the Court must award reasonable compensation. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal must be reasonable and fair. 11. In 2006 (4) CTC 433 (Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited v. Ahmed Thambi) Full Bench of this Court observing that the compensation awarded is to be just, fair and adequate has held as follows:- " The Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly held and reiterated that the compensation to be awarded by the Tribunals under any head should not be a token compensation, but it should be adequate and reasonable to achieve the statutory goal. The Tribunals are well advised to take into account the facts and circumstances of the individuals case, the age of the injured or the deceased on the date of the accident, social and economic status of the deceased or injured, the prospects of the deceased/injured earning more income if the accident had not taken place. The Tribunals are well advised to take into account the facts and circumstances of the individuals case, the age of the injured or the deceased on the date of the accident, social and economic status of the deceased or injured, the prospects of the deceased/injured earning more income if the accident had not taken place. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases while assessing compensation should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing quantification of compensation." Having regard to the nature of injuries and duration of treatment of the Claimant, the compensation amount of Rs.34,620/- is enhanced to Rs.49,620/- as under:- 12. In the result, " The Order of the VI Judge, Small Causes Court, Motor Accident claims Tribunal Chennai in MCOP No.133 of 1999 dated 112. 2001 is modified and this C.M.A. is allowed in part. " The Compensation amount of Rs.34,620/-payable to the Claimant is enhanced to Rs.49,620/-. " The Compensation amount of Rs.34,620/-awarded by the Tribunal is payable with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of Petition. " The enhanced compensation of Rs.15,000/-shall be payable by the Second Respondent/ Insurance Company with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. " The Second Respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal to the credit of MCOP No. 133 of 1999 on the file of VI Judge, Small Causes Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chennai within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs in this appeal.