Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2748 (MAD)

M. Subramaniam v. M. Chandrasekaran

2010-07-07

P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The appeal is preferred by the claimant against the award dated 30.04.2002 made in MCOP No.100 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court No.IV), Erode. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The appellant/claimant is the injured in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 08.10.1999 at about 7.30 p.m. While the appellant/claimant was walking from south to north at the junction of Sathy road and Mettur Road, the first respondent drove the lorry bearing registration No.TDA 6574 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained lacerated injuries. The claimant was immediately admitted in Government Hospital, Erode. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-as compensation. The third respondent - Insurance Company 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 lorry by first respondent? 2. Whether or not the claimant/injured 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 rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, who is the driver of the lorry belonging to the second respondent, and awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Permanent disability Rs. 14,400/- Loss of earning during Treatment period Rs. 1,500/- Transport charges Rs. 500/- Medical expenses Rs. 7,000/-Pain and suffering Rs. 1,000/- Total... Rs. 25,000/- Aggrieved by that award, the claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the amount awarded under various heads is very low, without basis and justification 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 and seeks enhanced compensation. 4. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and seeks enhanced compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the correct 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 learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the third respondent, no one was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is Dr.R.Rajeshkumar. PW3 is one Senkkottuvelu. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of accident register. Ex.P3 is the copy of charge sheet. Ex.P4 is the copy of judgment in criminal proceedings. Ex.P5 is the medical bills. Ex.P6 is the discharge receipt. Ex.P7 is the x-ray film. Ex.P8 is the disability certificate. Ex.P9 is the x-ray film. Ex.P10 wound certificate. Ex.P11 is the salary bill. Ex.P12 is the authorization letter. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the second respondent. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 55 years. He is working as a Measurer in an oil Mill and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. PW1-the claimant deposed that while he was walking along the road from Bhavani Bus stand towards Mettur Road, the first respondent drove the lorry bearing registration No.TDA 6574 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner. Due to which, the claimant sustained lacerated injuries and immediately he was admitted in Government Hospital, Erode and later at Kavin Hospital, Erode. He further deposed that the he had sustained fracture in his left leg and lacerated injuries all over the body. A case has been registered against the first respondent-driver of the lorry under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and the driver also admitted his guilt and paid a fine of Rs.700/-. He further deposed that the he had sustained fracture in his left leg and lacerated injuries all over the body. A case has been registered against the first respondent-driver of the lorry under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and the driver also admitted his guilt and paid a fine of Rs.700/-. PW2 the Doctor, who examined the claimant, assessed the disability at 30% and issued Ex.P8 disability certificate. However, the Tribunal discarded the evidence of PW2-doctor and fixed the disability at 10%. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that the claimant would have earned Rs.50/- per day as a coolie and fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.1500/- and arrived at the annual income at Rs.18,000/-. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the age of the claimant as 56 years, adopted the multiplier of ‘8’ and awarded a sum of Rs.14,400/-(18000x8x10) towards 10% permanent disability. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Insurance company vehemently contended that the Tribunal is wrong in adopting the multiplier method in the case of injury. Normally the Courts award Rs.1000/- to 2000/-per percentage of disability. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the correct method to be adopted in this case is percentage method. Considering the evidence of PW-2 doctor and Ex.P8-disability certificate, it would be reasonable to fix the disability at 30%. If Rs.1000/- is taken per percentage of disability, for 30% disability, the loss of income due to permanent disability works out to Rs.30,000/- (Rs.1000 x 30%) as against Rs.14,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1500/- towards loss of income during treatment period. The claimant took treatment about a month at Government Hospital Erode and Kavin Hospital, Erode. Taking into consideration of the same, the amount awarded under this head is very low and it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- under this head as against Rs.1500/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.500/- towards transport charges, which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7000/- towards medical expenses. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the claimant had spent Rs.34,500/- towards medical expenses and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and it should have awarded a sum of Rs.34,500/- as claimed. Ex.P5 is the series of medical bills. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7000/- towards medical expenses. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the claimant had spent Rs.34,500/- towards medical expenses and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and it should have awarded a sum of Rs.34,500/- as claimed. Ex.P5 is the series of medical bills. Rs.34,500/- is the actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Hence, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.34,500/- under this head as against Rs.7,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1000/- towards pain and suffering, which is very low. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, it would be reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- under this head as against Rs.1000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per annum. The date of accident is 08.10.1999. Considering the prevailing rate of interest during that period, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Permanent disability Rs. 30,000/- Loss of earning during Treatment period Rs. 5,000/- Transport charges Rs. 500/- Medical expenses Rs. 34,500/- Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- Total... Rs. 75,000/- Less: Already awarded amount Rs. 25,000/- ----------------- Enhanced amount Rs. 50,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.75,000/--25,000) with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 7. The third respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs50,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of the claim petition, within a period of eight 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. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.