Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 4042 (MAD)

Pandurangan v. Ponnusamy & Another

2009-10-05

P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2009
Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the claimant against Award dated 18.04.2002 made in MCOP No.39 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.IV), Erode at Bhavani. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The injured was met with an motor vehicle accident that took place on 12.05.1998 at about 04.00PM. He was a betel nut seller and he along with some others engaged a Tempo from Anthiyur to go to Salem – Sevapet Milk Market for marketing their betel nut. While they were returning from Salem to their native place by the said Tempo, at the time, a Bus belonging to the second respondent-Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.27-N-0575 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tempo and caused the accident. Due to the same, the claimant sustained grievous injuries over his waist and all over the body. The claimant was immediately admitted in the Government Hospital, Salem. After getting first aid, he was admitted in L.K.M. Hospital, Erode. He claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. The appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1.Whether or not the injured received injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the second respondent bus driven by the first respondent? 2.Whether or not the injured/claimant is entitled to any compensation? 3.If so, to what amount and from whom? 4.To what relief? 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 second respondent-Transport Corporation and awarded a consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by that Award, the claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant submitted that award amount of compensation is very low and meagre. Further, it is 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. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Therefore, it is a fit case for enhancement. 4. Further, it is 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. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Therefore, it is a fit case for enhancement. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Transport Corporation 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. The claimant himself examined as P.W.1 and Thiru. R. Rajamanickam examined as PW2 and the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P.10 were marked. Ex.P.1 is the First Information Report, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 are the Reports of Motor Vehicles Inspector. Ex.P.4 & Ex.P.7 are the Wound Certificates. Ex.P.5 is the copy of the Charge Sheet. Ex.P.6 is the copy of the Judgment in Criminal Proceedings. Ex.P.8 is the series of Medical Bills. Ex.P.9 is the X-Ray and Ex.P.10 is the Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondents, Thiru. Subramani examined as RW1 and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. 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 driver of the bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 38 years old. He is a betel nut seller. He claimed that his monthly income is Rs.4,500/-per month. He is a PW1 and in his evidence stated that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The driver of the bus was also charge sheeted under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC by Annathapatti Police Station in Crime No.746 of 1998. After the said accident, the claimant was immediately admitted in the Government Hospital, Salem. After getting first aid, he was admitted in L.K.M. Hospital, Erode and later on, he has been taking treatment in a private nursing home at Anthiyur. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries over his waist. PW2-Thiru.R.Rajamanickam is the Doctor, who assessed the disability. After getting first aid, he was admitted in L.K.M. Hospital, Erode and later on, he has been taking treatment in a private nursing home at Anthiyur. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries over his waist. PW2-Thiru.R.Rajamanickam is the Doctor, who assessed the disability. He assessed the disability to the extent of 25%. After considering the above, the Tribunal held that there is no concrete proof available on record to show the injuries were permanent. So, the Tribunal only awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.25,000/-towards 25% of disability. There is no dispute regarding the disability of 25%. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to 2,000/-per percentage of disability. Hence, I feel that it would be appropriate to award Rs.1,000/- for 1% disability and award Rs.25,000/-(Rs.1,000 X 25%) under this head instead of Rs.10,000/-. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that he had incurred the Medical Expenses and also took treatment in the Hospital. Ex.P.7 is the Wound Certificate and Ex.P.8 are the series of Medical Bills. The tribunal had not considered the said document and simply rejected the same. When there is material available on record to show that the claimant has incurred expenditure, it is wrong on the part of the Tribunal by rejecting the claim. Therefore, I feel that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards Medical Expenses. The claimant took treatment in two hospitals for a period of 15 days. No amount has been awarded towards Attendant Charges. After taking into consideration the period of treatment, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards Attendant Charges. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under: Loss due to 25% of disability :Rs.25,000/- Medical Expenses :Rs. 5,000/- Attendant Charges :Rs. 5,000/- Total :Rs.35,000/- Less: Already awarded amount :Rs.10,000/- Enhanced amount :Rs.25,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.25,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 7. The second respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to the deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.25,000/-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. 7. The second respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to the deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.25,000/-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. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.