Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1455 (MAD)

Ravi v. K. Dhanasekaran

2010-04-01

C.S.KARNAN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 19.07.2000, made in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Thiruvannamalai, awarding a compensation of Rs.15,000/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Having not been satisfied with the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for enhancement of compensation, a sum of Rs.85,000/- together with interest and costs. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was aged about 20 years old, an agriculturist and thereby he was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month at the time of accident. On 15.05.1997 at about 03.00 p.m. the petitioner was proceeding from his residence to ration shop, at that time, the first respondents vehicle bearing registration No.TNI7637, which was insured with the second respondent/ The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Thiruvannamalai, driven by its driver from Vellore to Thiruvannamalai and coming behind the petitioners cycle, who was riding his cycle and dashed against him, resulting in, the petitioner fell down from his cycle and sustained head injury and blood injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was rushed to Government Hospital at Thiruvannamalai and then he was referred to CMC Hospital at Vellore. The petitioner spent about Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. After the accident he is unable to pursue his normal duty. Hence, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- against the respondents. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The second respondent stated that the petitioner has to prove, age, avocation, income and nature of injuries, period of treatment, permanent disability, medical expenses and other expenses. The second respondent further stated that the petitioner has to prove the existing policy, valid driving licence and permit. The driver of the car is the necessary party to this claim petition. The respondent further stated that no such accident has occurred. The first respondents driver is not responsible for the accident. In fact the petitioner had ridden his bicycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. There is no permanent disability sustained by the petitioner in the said accident. The respondent further stated that no such accident has occurred. The first respondents driver is not responsible for the accident. In fact the petitioner had ridden his bicycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. There is no permanent disability sustained by the petitioner in the said accident. The claim amount is excessive, hence, the second respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who is responsible for the accident? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much he is entitled to? (iii)Who is liable to pay the compensation amount? 6. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the respondents side no witness was examined and no documents were marked. 7. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P1. The complaint was given by one Selvaraj and he was not examined before the Tribunal. The Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report was marked as Ex.P2, which indicates that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defects. The copy of the Accident Register is marked as Ex.P3. In pursuance of the Ex.P1, the Investigation Agency had investigated the matter and filed a Charge Sheet against the first respondents driver. The first respondents driver himself had pleaded guilty and paid the fine amount, Ex.P4 proves the same. The PW1 had adduced evidence that he was proceeding on his bicycle from north to south on the eastern side of the road. At that time, the first respondents vehicle came from behind and dashed against him. Considering the PW1 evidence and Exs.P1 to P4, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondents vehicle. 8. In the above said accident, the petitioner sustained head injury and injury to his right shoulder. To prove the same Ex.P3, the Accident Register was marked. PW2, Dr.Abraham, had adduced evidence stating that the petitioner was admitted at the CMC Hospital in the Neurology Department and was an inpatient from 15.05.1997 to 20.05.1997. The Doctor issued a Wound Certificate, which is marked as Ex.P7. It indicates that the petitioner had sustained grievous injury 3 X 1 c.m. lacerated wound right parietal region. PW2, Dr.Abraham, had adduced evidence stating that the petitioner was admitted at the CMC Hospital in the Neurology Department and was an inpatient from 15.05.1997 to 20.05.1997. The Doctor issued a Wound Certificate, which is marked as Ex.P7. It indicates that the petitioner had sustained grievous injury 3 X 1 c.m. lacerated wound right parietal region. The CT Scan also shows that enlarged cisterna magna was found. Considering this evidence the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner sustained head injury. Hence, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation as follows: 1. Rs.5,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering, 2. Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of loss of income during the period of treatment, extra nourishment, transport charges, medical expenses and towards other expenses, In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. The Tribunal directed the second respondent to deposit the said compensation amount into the Court, within a period of two months. In turn, the said amount to be deposited in any one of the nationalised bank for a period of three years. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest once in three months from the said compensation amount. 9. Having not been satisfied with the said award and decree in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Thiruvannamalai, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for an additional compensation amount of Rs.85,000/-together with interest. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-, which is on the lower side. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of medical expenses, loss of income, extra nourishment and transport charges, which are not pertinent. The Tribunal had failed to consider the nature of injuries and the claimant being admitted into the neurology department. The Tribunal awarded a Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain and suffering is also on the lower side. The learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal had not properly considered the evidence of the claimant, Doctor and documentary evidence. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued that the claimant only sustained lacerated simple injuries. The Doctor had not assessed any disability over the claimant. The learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal had not properly considered the evidence of the claimant, Doctor and documentary evidence. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued that the claimant only sustained lacerated simple injuries. The Doctor had not assessed any disability over the claimant. On the basis of the simple injuries sustained by the claimant the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- is reasonable and fair. As such, the said appeal is not maintainable. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, on scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal and arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that there is a slight discrepancy in the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this Court decided to grant an additional compensation as follows: 1. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-, this Court confirms the same, 2. For medical expenses, under the strength of Ex.P6, this Court awards a sum of Rs.13,000/-, 3. For nutrition, this Court awards a sum of Rs.3,000/-, 4. For transport, this Court awards a sum of Rs.3,000/-, 5. For loss of income, this Court awards a sum of Rs.6,000/-, The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the head of loss of income, nutrition, medical expenses and transport costs, which is to be set aside. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the claimant. Already, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the claimant, after deducting this amount from the additional award amount the balance compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the appellant/claimant with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation into the Court, which is found to be fair and equitable. 13. Therefore, this Court hereby directs the second respondent/The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Thiruvannamalai, to deposit the additional compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- together with interest as observed above with in a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.168 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Thiruvannamalai. 14. 14. After such deposit has been made by the second respondent, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the additional compensation amount ie.a sum of Rs.15,000/-with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.168 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Thiruvannamalai, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. 15. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 19.07.2000, in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Thiruvannamalai, is modified. There shall be no order as to costs.