Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3630 (MAD)

Krishnmoorthy v. S. Karuppannan & Another

2009-09-09

P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2009
Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the claimant against award dated 28.02.2007 made in MCOP No.23 of 2005 (renumbered as MCOP No.190/2006) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.3), Dharapuram. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The claimant met with a motor vehicle accident that took place on 310. 2004 at about 8.00 p.m. The appellant/claimant was proceeding in his TVS-50 bearing Registration No.TN-33-W-0720 from his residence to the Factory, his working place. When he was nearing Sumathi Tea Stall, Kangayam to Tirupur Main Road, Kangayam town from South to North at the left extremity of the road, the Van bearing Registration No. TN-33-Z-2860 came South to North in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant due to the which the claimant sustained head injury and grievous injuries all over the body. The first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, insured the same with the second respondent, who resisted the claim. The claimant 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 first respondent? 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 rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,94,300/-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 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. She further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and seeks to enhance the compensation. Therefore, she submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is not correct in accordance with law and it is a fit case for enhancement of compensation. 4. She further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and seeks to enhance the compensation. Therefore, she submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is not correct in accordance with law and it is a fit case for enhancement of 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 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is Dr.Selva Perumal. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report. Exs.P2 and P3 are the certified copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Reports. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the wound certificate Ex.P5 is the Discharge Summary. Exs.P6 and P7 are series of Medical Bills. Ex.P8 is the E.C.G. Ex.P9 is the disability certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 23 years. He is P.W.1. He was working as a Fitter in D.T. Oil Mills, Tirupur Road, Kangeyam and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. He further deposed that due to accident he sustained head injury and also multiple injuries all over body. The driver of the Van was also charge sheeted under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C by Kangeyam Police Station. It was also further stated that immediately after the accident, he was taken to Government Hospital, Kangeyam and he was given First-Aid. Later he was transferred to Government Hospital, Erode. Subsequently he was transferred to K.M.Nallasamy Hospital, Erode for better treatment. He was in the hospital for a period of 26 days. P.W.2 is the Doctor who examined the claimant. It was also further stated that immediately after the accident, he was taken to Government Hospital, Kangeyam and he was given First-Aid. Later he was transferred to Government Hospital, Erode. Subsequently he was transferred to K.M.Nallasamy Hospital, Erode for better treatment. He was in the hospital for a period of 26 days. P.W.2 is the Doctor who examined the claimant. In his evidence he has deposed that the claimant had sustained head injury as well as brain injury for which claimant underwent surgery. Due to the said injuries, the claimant is suffering from epilepsy and he is unable to speak coherently. The doctor assessed the disability at 30%. Ex.P9 is the Disability Certificate. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards permanent disability of 30%. The counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the award amount is very low and meagre and the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.2,000/-for each % of disability. After considering the oral evidence of the Doctor as well as the documentary evidence available on record, it is reasonable and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.2,000/-for each % of disability and there is no serious dispute of the same. If Rs.2,000/-for each % of disability is awarded, permanent disability works out to Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal (30% X Rs.2,000/-). Therefore, loss of income due to 30% disability is modified to Rs.60,000/-. 7. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards Medical Expenses. Exs.6 & 7 are series of Medical Bills. As per the exhibits, the actual amount incurred is Rs.1,33,716/-. As against the actual expenditure, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,20,000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the actual expenditure of Rs.1,33,716/- towards Medical Expenses. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, it is reasonable to award Rs.1,33,716/- as against Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is a actual expenditure. 8. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1,300/- towards loss of income during the treatment period, Rs.2,000/- for Extra Nourishments, Rs.10,000/- towards Pain and Sufferings, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.1,000/- towards Transport charges. In respect of the above said heads, the Tribunal has considered all the facts available on record and the award of compensation is just and reasonable. In respect of the above said heads, the Tribunal has considered all the facts available on record and the award of compensation is just and reasonable. There is no evidence on record to disturb the finding. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under those heads are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest of 7.5%, which is also reasonable and the same is confirmed. 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.43,716/-(Rs.2,38,016/- – Rs.1,94,300/-) with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.43,716/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. 10. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.