Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3691 (MAD)

Manohar v. Sivaraman & Another

2009-09-11

P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2009
Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant against award dated 23.03.2006 made in MCOP No.1501 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Judge), Cuddalore. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The claimant is the injured in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 04.05.2004 at about 4.30p.m. When the appellant-claimant was walking from North to South on the extreme left, a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-31-E-4330, which belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the claimant. Due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained fractures and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, the claimant was admitted in Valli Vilas Hospital, Cuddalore. He claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation. The second respondent-Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cyclist or not? 2. Is the claimant entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount?" 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 driver of the first respondent and awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.10,000/-as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by that award, the appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award and 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 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. 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 P13 were marked. On the side of the respondents no witness was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is the Doctor Sivasubramaniam. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the Accident Register. Ex.P3 is the discharge summary. Ex.P4 is the discharge summary issued by Mahatma Gandhi Hospital. Ex.P5 is the copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of the registration certificate relating to the vehicle. Ex.P7 is the copy of the Insurance policy relating to the vehicle. Ex.P8 is the copy of the driving licence. Ex.P9 is the copy of the driving licence relating to the claimant. Ex.P10 are the series of medical bills. Ex.P11 is the prescription. Ex.P12 is the wound certificate. Ex.P13 is the X-ray. After considering the 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 driver of the lorry, which belonging to the first respondent and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 40 years old. He is an Auto Rickshaw Driver and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. PW1-the claimant has deposed in his evidence that due to the accident he had sustained fracture on his left knee and multiple injuries all over the body and he is unable to drive as before. He further deposed that immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Valli Vilas Hospital, Cuddalore as in-patient. PW-2 Doctor Sivasubramaniam has deposed that he examined the claimant and determined the disability at 45%. Ex.P12 is the disability certificate. Exs.P3 and P4 are the discharge summaries. The Tribunal, considering the above oral and documentary evidence, awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.10,000/-as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that in Ex.P2-accident register, the doctor has stated that the first injury sustained by the claimant is the grievous one and PW2-Doctor, who examined the claimant has determined the disability at 45%. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that in Ex.P2-accident register, the doctor has stated that the first injury sustained by the claimant is the grievous one and PW2-Doctor, who examined the claimant has determined the disability at 45%. It would certainly affect the earning capacity and hence, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a compensation under the head loss due to disability. There is no dispute regarding the same. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income due to permanent disability. It is clear from the evidence that the claimant has sustained fracture on his left knee and took treatment at Valli Vilas Hospital, Cuddalore and later at private hospital. Considering the same, I feel that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering. The claimant took treatment in two hospitals. Considering the same, I feel that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.3,250/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.3,250/- towards transport charges. Ex.P10 is the series of medical bills for a sum of Rs.8,237/-. It is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.8,500/-towards medical expenses. The details of the modified amount of compensation are as under:- Loss due to permanent disability of 45% Rs. 15,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/-Extra nourishment Rs. 3,250/-Transport charges Rs. 3,250/-Medical expenses Rs. 8,500/- Total Rs. 40,000/- Less: Already awarded amount Rs. 10,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 30,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.30,000/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 8. The second respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.30,000/- 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 proper application. 9. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.