Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 4149 (MAD)

The Managing Director, Kumbakonam v. Ravi

2009-10-08

P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2009
Judgment :- The appeal is preferred by the Transport Corporation-appellant against the Award, dated 012. 2001, made in MCOP No.56 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at Nagapattinam. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The injured was met with an accident on 11.02.2001 at about 13.30 hours. While the claimant was boarding in the bus bearing Registration No.TN 49 N 0969 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation, the claimant lost his balance and fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the injured was taken to the Government Hospital, Mannargudi. After first aid treatment, the claimant was referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur. But, he was admitted as inpatient in the Vinodhagan Memorial Hospital, Thanjavur. He claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant-transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. By whose carelessness the accident had occurred? 2. What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to? 3. Whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation from the Transport Corporation or not? 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 appellant transport corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,02,400/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The details of the same are as under: Loss of income due to 49% of disability :Rs.2,49,900/- Medical Expenses :Rs. 30,000/-Extra Nourishment :Rs. 10,000/-Pain and Sufferings :Rs. 10,000/-Loss of income during treatment period :Rs. 2,500/- Total :Rs.3,02,400/- Aggrieved by that Award, the appellant – Transport Corporation has filed this present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without basis and that therefore, the Award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent -claimant 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. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent -claimant 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 respondent-claimant himself has examined as P.W.1 and Dr. Rajagopal was examined as PW2 and the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were marked. Ex.P.1 is the attested copy of the First Information Report, Ex.P.2 is the returned Xerox copy of the petition, Ex.P.3 is the Wound Certificate, Ex.P.4-Series are the Discharge Cards, Ex.P.5-Series are the Medical Bills, Ex.P.6-series are the receipts of the Doctor, Ex.P.7-Series are the Trip Sheets, Ex.P.8-Series are the Fitness Certificates, Ex.P.9 is the copy of the Share Document, Ex.P.10 is the xerox copy of the Partnership Deed, Ex.P.11 is the X-Ray and Ex.P.12 is the Wound Certificate. On the side of the appellant –Transport Corporation, no one was examined 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 30 years old. He was the owner of the C.S.C. Computer Centre, Mannargudi and his qualification is M.Sc., Computer Science and also M.B.A.,(Marketing) at Madras University. He was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. In his evidence, he stated that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant -Transport Corporation. Due to the said accident, the respondent - claimant sustained fracture in his left leg. The driver of the vehicle was charge sheeted under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC in Crime No.158 of 2001 by the Mannargudi Police Station. After the accident, the injured was taken to the Government Hospital, Mannargudi. After first aid treatment, the claimant was referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur. But, he was taken treatment as inpatient in the Vinodhagan Memorial Hospital, Thanjavur from 11.02.2001 to 05.03.2001. Ex.P.3 is the Wound Certificate given by the said Hospital and Ex.P.4 is the Discharge Summary. After the accident, the injured was taken to the Government Hospital, Mannargudi. After first aid treatment, the claimant was referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur. But, he was taken treatment as inpatient in the Vinodhagan Memorial Hospital, Thanjavur from 11.02.2001 to 05.03.2001. Ex.P.3 is the Wound Certificate given by the said Hospital and Ex.P.4 is the Discharge Summary. The claimant has claimed to consider his earnings of Rs.5,000/- per month. Ex.P.9 is the Partnership Deed dated 22.08.1999 stated that the claimant received a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month as Salary. PW2 is a Doctor who assessed the disability at 49%. The loss of income is computed as Rs.2,500/- x 49/100 x 12 X 17 =Rs.2,49,900/-. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in applying the multiplier method for determining the loss of income. In the present case, the correct multiplier to be adopted is only percentage method and also there is no serious dispute regarding the same. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. In the present case, PW2 has deposed that the claimant had sustained fracture in his left leg and has assessed the disability at 49%. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained and disability, it is appropriate and reasonable to award Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. If Rs.2,000/-is awarded per percentage of disability, the loss of income due to the disability works out to Rs.98,000/-(2000 X 49) as against Rs.2,49,900/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards Medical Expenses. Ex.P.5-Series are the Medical bills. It is an actual expenditure. Considering the above facts and the documents marked, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards Extra Nourishment. The claimant was in the Vinodhagan Memorial Hospital, Thanjavur for a period of 35 days and also took treatment after discharged from the said hospital. Considering the same, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal only awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/-towards loss of income for one month. It is contended that the claimant was admitted in the hospital for three times and was in the hospital for a period of 35 days. Considering the same, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal only awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/-towards loss of income for one month. It is contended that the claimant was admitted in the hospital for three times and was in the hospital for a period of 35 days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.7,500/-under this head as against Rs.2,500/- and accordingly, Rs.7,500/-is awarded under this head. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards pain and sufferings, taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries and the treatment period of 35 days, which is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities and Transport. Considering the nature of the injuries and the facts that the respondent - claimant took treatment in the Government Hospital and then shifted to the Vinodhagan Memorial Hospital, I feel that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.5,000/- towards Transport Charges. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The accident has occurred on 11.02.2001. After taking into consideration of the same and the fall of interest rate, it is reasonable to award interest of 7.5%. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under: Loss of income due to 49% of disability :Rs. 98,000/- Medical Expenses :Rs. 30,000/- Extra Nourishment :Rs. 10,000/- Loss of monthly income during the | :Rs. 7,500/- Treatment period Pain and sufferings :Rs. 10,000/- Loss of amenities :Rs. 10,000/- Transport Charges :Rs. 5,000/- Total :Rs.1,70,500/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,70,500/-as against the compensation of Rs.3,02,400/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has submitted that the entire Award amount has already been deposited as per the Order of this Court. The respondent - claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified Award amount of Rs.1,70,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by making proper application. The respondent - claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified Award amount of Rs.1,70,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by making proper application. The appellant-Transport Corporation is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.