Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2238 (MAD)

T. Stephen Kishore v. V. Kannabiran

2010-06-07

P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2010
Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant/claimant against the Award and Decree made in MCOP No.125 of 1998 dated 20.09.2000 on the file of the VI Judge, Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai. 2. The brief facts arising out of the above appeal are as follows:- On 17.07.1997 at about 3.30 p.m., one Stephen Kishore/claimant met with an accident. While he was walking on the left side of G.S.T. Road, the rider of the Bullet bearing Registration No.PY-01 J 3669, who came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, hit the appellant/claimant and had caused grievous injuries. The first respondent is the owner of the said vehicle, which was insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-before the Tribunal. The second respondent/Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- a) Who is responsible for the accident ? b) How much compensation the claimant is entitled to ? 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 rider of the Motor Cycle, which insured with the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of claim petition. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal are as under:- Rupees Transport expenses 10,000/- Nutrition 3,000/- Pain and suffering 15,000/- Disability 30,000/- Loss of future income 10,000/-Medical expenses 65,000/- Future medical expenses 20,000 Total... 1,53,000/- ============== Aggrieved by the awards, the claimant has filed the present appeal. It is also stated that the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the award. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation as claimed by the appellant and also the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment of compensation. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal, without basis and justification, and the same has to be set aside and it is the fit case for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record. The claimant was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is Dr. Saichandran and P.W.3 is Dr. Rajappa. The following are the details of exhibits marked on behalf of the claimants: -Exs. P1 and Ex. P2 are the Discharge summary, Ex. P3 is the Scan report, Ex. P4Medical report, Ex. P5-Medical Bills, Ex. P6-receipts, Ex.P7-Documents relating to transport charges, Ex. P8-FIR, Ex. P9-Season ticket, Ex. P10-Identity Card, Ex. P11 and Ex. P14-Disability Certificates, Ex. P12-X-ray, Ex. P13-Medical Certificate. On behalf of the second respondent/ Insurance Company, no one was examined and no documents were marked. 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 rider of the Motor Cycle and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/-with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 18 years. He was the student of Valliammal Polytechnic and studying II year Electronic Communication Engineering. While he was returning home, the accident had happened. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 65,000/- towards medical expenses. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation in respect of the medical bills, because as per Ex. P5-medical bills, the compensation under this head would be Rs. 76,024.52. Ex. P5 is the medical bills, which is an actual expenditure incurred by the appellant/claimant at the time of accident. There was no dispute regarding the same. But the Tribunal, restricted the medical expenses to Rs.65,000/- on the ground that the claimant claimed medical expenses only to the extent of Rs.65,000/-in the claim petition. The Tribunal ought to have allowed the whole amount as claimed by the appellant and also the genuineness of the same is not questioned. Therefore, the claim made by the claimant in respect of the medical expenses at Rs.76,024.52 is awarded as against Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have allowed the whole amount as claimed by the appellant and also the genuineness of the same is not questioned. Therefore, the claim made by the claimant in respect of the medical expenses at Rs.76,024.52 is awarded as against Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards permanent disability. Ex. P11 is the Disability Certificate given by P.W.2-Doctor Saichandran and the disability is fixed at 45%. In his evidence, he deposed that the claimant sustained a fracture in his left leg and also suffered with head injury. In his evidence, it is stated that a steel plate was fixed. Due to the same, the claimant is unable to walk and sit substantially. Further, P.W.3-Doctor Rajappa, who examined the claimant given Ex.P.14-Disability Certificate to an extent of 25%. According to him, the claimants left eye was affected, movements of the eye ball was restricted and the blood circulation to the eye nerves was reduced and have given a disability certificate to the extent of 25%. The Tribunal, accepting the disability, has awarded only a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as against Rs. 45,000/- claimed by the appellant and also there is no reasoning. After taking into consideration, the oral evidence of P.W.2 as well as P.W.3, and also the nature of injuries sustained, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is very low and therefore, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 45,000/- under this head as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In respect of the other award amounts viz. Transport charges – Rs. 10,000/- Nutrition-Rs. 3,000/-, Pain and Suffering-Rs.15,000/-, future medical expenses-Rs. 20,000/-and Loss of earning capacity-Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal are very reasonable and the same are confirmed. The details of the modified amount of compensation are as under:- Rupees Transport expenses 10,000/-Nutrition 3,000/-Pain and suffering 15,000/-Disability at 45% 45,000/- Future Medical expenses 20,000/- Medical expenses 76,024/-Loss of earning power 10,000/- Total... 1,79,024/-which is rounded off 1,80,000/- Less the amount already awarded 1,53,000/- Enhanced amount 27,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhancement compensation of Rs. 27,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition. 7. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhancement amount of Rs. 1,79,024/-which is rounded off 1,80,000/- Less the amount already awarded 1,53,000/- Enhanced amount 27,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhancement compensation of Rs. 27,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition. 7. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhancement amount of Rs. 27,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, within a period of four weeks from the date P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA, J. as of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application. 8. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. No costs.