Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2432 (MAD)

Amirthammal v. Chotu Ram

2010-06-16

P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Since, both the Appeals arise out of the same order, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgement. 2. Background facts in nutshell are as follows: For convenient, the parties are referred to as per the original rank in the claim petition. The claimant met with motor vehicle accident on 09.09.1996 at about 10.45 a.m. While the injured was travelling in the PATC bus bearing registration No.TN 23-NO943 belonging to the State Transport Corporation, proceeding from Madras to Vellore, a lorry bearing registration NO.RJ-02-G-3342 belonging the first respondent in C.M.A.No.2573/02 and the second respondent in C.M.A.No.1797 of 2002 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the bus. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained injuries. Immediately , he was taken to Kancheepuram Government Hospital, later she took treatment in Government Hospital, Chennai, Apollo Hospital, Chennai as inpatient for the period of 20 days and later she took treatment in C.M.C., Vellore. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.2,99,911/- as compensation. The said lorry was insured with Insurance Company (Appellant in C.M.A.No.1797 of 2002), who 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 driver of the lorry or not? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any claim?" 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 lorry and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,58,011/- with interest at 9% per annum. The details of the compensation are as under: Transport charges Rs. 1,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,01,011/- Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- Permanent disability Rs. 45,000/- Total Rs.1,58,011/- ========= Aggrieved by that award, the Insurance Company as well as the claimant have filed the present appeals. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal wrongly held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and it ought to have seen that it is only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without any basis and justification. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without any basis and justification. Therefore, the order 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 claimant submitted that the Tribunal awarded only a very low and meagre compensation and ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant. The Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award and hence seeks to enhance the compensation. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 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. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the respondents, RW1-K.Narasimhan, the Investing Officer of the Insurance Company was examined and Investigating Report was marked as Ex.R1. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is Dr.Sai Chandran. Ex.P1 is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report Ex.P2 is the series of medical bills. Ex.P3 is the Insurance Policy. Ex.P4 is the Xerox copy of the Driving License. Ex.P5 is the copy of the National Permit. Ex.P6 is the disability certificate. Ex.P7 is the X-ray. Ex.P8 is the Lawyers Notice. Ex.P9 is the discharge summary. Ex.P10 is the Apollo hospitals bill. Ex.P11 is the First Information Report and copy of the Charge Sheet. Ex.P12 is the copy of the Passbook. In this case, Ex.P11-First Information Report was lodged by the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus. P.W.1-the claimant in his evidence has stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and in the FIR also it is stated that the lorry alone came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the right side of the bus. Subsequently, the FIR was closed and further it is stated that if there is no fault on the driver of the lorry, definitely he would have lodged the complaint. Subsequently, the FIR was closed and further it is stated that if there is no fault on the driver of the lorry, definitely he would have lodged the complaint. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 as well as F.I.R., the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. It is based on valid material evidence and the same is confirmed in respect of the negligence aspect. 7. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 46 years. She is a house wife. In her evidence, she has stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The driver of the lorry was charge sheeted in Cr.No.979/1996 by K1, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Chengai Anna District. Due to the accident, she sustained the following injuries: "1. Lacerated injury over the right shoulder exposing fracture humerous, Lacerated would on dorsum of right writ, Crush injury of right thumb, 2. Lacerated would on doraum of right wrist 3. Crush injury of right thumb. 4. Fracture clavicle right 5. Fracture scapul right 6. Oblique fracture neck of humerus rights 7. Fracture dislocation right wrist 8. Fracture matacarpals 1 to 5 9. Fracture proximal pharmx vertipre right thumb 10. Fractures of 1-8 ribs right." Immediately after the accident, she was admitted in Kancheepuram Head Quarter Hospital and then referred to Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai and later admitted in Apollo Hospital for better treatment. She was admitted on 09.09.1996 as in-patient at Kancheepuram Hospital and next day Stanley hospital, Chennai and later at Apollo hospital from 10.09.1996 to 02.10.1996. Ex.P9 is the discharge summary given by Apollo Hospital. Ex.P10 is the medical bills. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges as well as Rs.1,000/-towards extra nourishment. There is no dispute that the claimant took treatment in Kancheepuram hospital, Stanley Hospital as well as Apollo hospital. After taking into consideration of the same, I feel that it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-under each heads i.e.transport charges as well as extra nourishment. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1,01,011/-towards medical expenses. Ex.P10 is the series of Medical bills, which is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. After taking into consideration of the same, I feel that it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-under each heads i.e.transport charges as well as extra nourishment. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1,01,011/-towards medical expenses. Ex.P10 is the series of Medical bills, which is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards attendant charges. Under this head she claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/-. After taking into consideration, the fact that the claimant took treatment as inpatient for 22 days, she would have certainly incurred expenses towards attendant charges. Therefore, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,500/- under this head. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering as against Rs.20,000/- claimed by the claimant. After considering the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head. P.W.2-Dr.Sai Chandran, who examined the claimant has determined the disability at 45%. Ex.P6 is the Wound Certificate and Ex.P7 is the X-ray. There is no dispute regarding the disability of 45%. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards disability. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a very low compensation towards permanent disability. Normally, the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-for each percentage of disability. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries stated above, I feel that it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Transport charges Rs. 5,000/-Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-Medical expenses Rs. 1,01,011/-Attendant charges Rs. 7,500/-Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/-Permanent disability Rs. 60,000/- Total... Rs.1,93,511/-Less: Already awarded amount Rs.1,58,011/- --------------- Enhanced amount Rs. 35,,500/- ========= Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.35,500/- (Rs.1,93,511-1,58,011) with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 8. The appellant-Insurance Company in CMA No.1797 of 2002 and second respondent in CMA No.2573 of 2002 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.35,500/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The appellant-Insurance Company in CMA No.1797 of 2002 and second respondent in CMA No.2573 of 2002 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.35,500/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit of the said amount, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application. 9. In respect of the amount of Rs.1,58,011/-awarded by the Tribunal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company stated that entire award amount has already been deposited interest by this Court order dated 23.10.2002 and the claimant was also permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount. In these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount with interest, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application. 10. With the above modification, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. No costs.