Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3585 (MAD)

Chakravarthy v. C. J. Joseph & Another

2009-09-08

P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2009
Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the claimant against award dated 02.02.2006 made in MCOP No.1837 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 28.01.2004 at about 9.00 a.m, when the appellant/claimant was walking on Chengalamman bus stand, G.N.T. Road, near Co-operative Society Gowdown, a lorry bearing Registration No.KCF 6390 belonging to the first respondent herein and insured with the second respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to the said impact, the claimant had sustained multiple injuries. Immediately he was admitted in Government General Hospital, Chennai as in-patient. He claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver or not? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any claim? If so, how much?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Aggrieved by that award, the claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the amount awarded under various heads is very low and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and seeks to enhance the compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is one Dr. S. Gopalan. P.W.3 is Dr.N.Saichandran. Ex.P1 is the medical discharge summary. Ex.P2 is photo and negative. Ex.P3 is the First Information Report. Ex.P4 is the salary certificate. Ex.P5 is leave certificate. Exs.P6 and P8 are the disability certificates. Exs.P7 and P9 are X-Rays. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and the said finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 45 years. He is working as Clerk in Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation, Chennai and earning Rs.8000/- per month. PW1-the claimant deposed that due to the accident, he had sustained following injuries: “1.Multiple fractures of skull; 2.Multiple injuries all over the body; 3.Fracture of left clavicle and 4.Blunt injury on the head.” He further deposed that immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government General Hospital, Chennai as in-patient and took treatment for a period of 44 days and twice underwent surgery on his head and till he is under treatment and he is unable to walk and lift his left hand and also suffering from head ache, giddiness. PW2-Doctor Gopalan deposed in his evidence that he examined the claimant on 11. 2005 and issued Ex.P6-disability certificate, in which he assessed the disability at 60%. Ex.P7 is the X-ray. PW3-Doctor Saichandran deposed in his evidence that he examined the claimant on 210. 2005 and issued Ex.P8-disability certificate, in which, he assessed the disability at 20%. PW1 deposed in his evidence that he took 84 days medical leave and Ex.P5 is the leave certificate. Though the claimant was getting salary for the leave period, the Tribunal, after considering the fact that due to the accident only he availed medical leave, has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income. PW1 deposed in his evidence that he took 84 days medical leave and Ex.P5 is the leave certificate. Though the claimant was getting salary for the leave period, the Tribunal, after considering the fact that due to the accident only he availed medical leave, has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income. Considering the fact that if the accident had not occurred, the claimant would not have taken medical leave and hence, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards transport charges. The claimant took treatment for a period of 44 days in the Government General Hospital, Chennai and underwent surgeries. Considering the same, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- under this head as against Rs.3,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment, which is very low and meagre. After taking into consideration the period of treatment, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- under this head as against Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges. There is no dispute that the claimant took treatment for a period of 44 days in the Government General Hospital, Chennai and during that period, he would definitely took assistance. Considering the same, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards future transport charges. Considering the fact that the claimant had sustained head injuries and due to the same he is suffering from headache and giddiness and hence, he was going to hospital and office by auto, the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is very low. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, it would be very reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head as against Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/-towards permanent disability. Normally the Courts award Rs.1000/- to 2000/- per percentage of disability. PW2-Doctor has given Ex.P6-disability certificate to the extent of 60% and PW3 has given Ex.P8-disability certificate to the extent of 20%. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/-towards permanent disability. Normally the Courts award Rs.1000/- to 2000/- per percentage of disability. PW2-Doctor has given Ex.P6-disability certificate to the extent of 60% and PW3 has given Ex.P8-disability certificate to the extent of 20%. Considering the total disability of 80% the Tribunal is correct is awarding Rs.80,000/- i.e., Rs.1000/-per percentage of disability under this head and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future medical expenses. It is clear from the evidence of doctors that the claimant had suffered head injury. Considering the same, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards future medical expenses. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.20,000/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 7. The second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.