Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2983 (MAD)

R. Thambi v. R. Arumugham

2010-07-21

P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.03.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.1120 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub-Court) Erode. 2. Background facts in nutshell are as follows: The injured-R.Thambi met with an accident on 26.6.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. He was travelling in Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN 37 T 0639 as pillion rider along with one Krishnan, who is the rider on Kavundapadi – Erode main road. While he was nearing Selvanagar near Chettipalayam, a Bus belonging to the second respondent State Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN 33/N 0 1214, which came from opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Motor Cycle. Due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries, immediately he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Erode. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- and restricted his claim to Rs.5,00,000/-. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent-driver of the bus? ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation? If so, what is the amount? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as follows: Medical Expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Pain and Sufferings Rs. 15,000/- Permanent disability at30% Rs. 50,000/- Transportation Rs. 10,000/- Loss of Income during during the treatment period Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.1,90,000/- Aggrieved by the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal has awarded only a very meager sum of compensation and the Award passed by the tribunal is not just and proper and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the appellant. While passing the Award, the Tribunal has not considered the relevant materials and also has not followed the principles of assessment and therefore, the award passed by the tribunal is not in accordance with law and it is a fit case for enhancement. 4. While passing the Award, the Tribunal has not considered the relevant materials and also has not followed the principles of assessment and therefore, the award passed by the tribunal is not in accordance with law and it is a fit case for enhancement. 4. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent-Transport Corporation contended 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 learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the documents on records. On the side of the claimant, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.S.Natesan was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.18 were marked. Ex.P.1 is a copy of the First Information Report, Ex.P.2 is a copy of the Observation Mahazer, Ex.P.3 is a copy of the Rough sketch, Exs.P.4 and P.5 are the copies of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Reports, Ex.P.6 is a copy of the Wound Certificate, Ex.P.7 is a copy of the Charge Sheet, Ex.P.8 is the Hospital Inpatient Card, Ex.P.9 is the Hospital Bills, Ex.P.10 is the Doctor Receipts, Ex.P.11 is the Medical Bills, Ex.P.12 is the X-ray, Ex.P.13 is the Permanent Disability Certificate, Ex.P.14 is the X-Ray, Ex.P.15 is the Admission Card, Ex.P.16 are the certificates, Ex.P.17 is Annual Accounts Report and Ex.P.18 is Photos and Negatives. On the side of the respondents, the first respondent-R.Arumugham, the driver of the bus belonging to the second respondents Corporation has been examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 Post Mortem Certificate and R.2 Doctors Report have been marked. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has made a categorical finding in allowing the petition that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent driver of the bus belonging to the second respondent Corporation. 6. The claimant was 32 years old at the time of the accident. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has made a categorical finding in allowing the petition that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent driver of the bus belonging to the second respondent Corporation. 6. The claimant was 32 years old at the time of the accident. He was working under the Contractor as a Supervisor at Neyveli Coal Mines and was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/-p.m. P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and a case has been registered against him by Kavundapadi Police Station in Crime No.185 of 2002 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. He further stated that he had sustained fracture in right leg below the knee, right thigh and multiple injuries all over the body and his right leg was shortened by 1.5 inches. After the accident, he was admitted in Erode Government Hospital and later at LKM hospital, Erode and undergone surgery by seven times and plate has been fixed and took treatment as inpatient for 78 days. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- towards Medical Expenses. Exs.P.9, 10 and 11 are series of medical bills. After considering those documents, the Tribunal was the view that the Medical Bills does not show any proper evidence and therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards Medical Expenses. Hence, this Court feels that the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards Medical Bills and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards Pain and suffering which is very low. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant was taking treatment as inpatient for 164 days for the injuries sustained. Considering the nature of injuries, it is very reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-under this head as against a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. P.W.2 Dr.Natesan has examined the claimant and he determined the disability at 30%. He also stated in his evidence that considering the fracture and shortage of leg, he determined the disability at 30% and given Ex.P.6 wound certificate and Ex.P.13 Permanent disability certificate. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability. Normally, the Courts award a sum of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- for each percentage of disability. He also stated in his evidence that considering the fracture and shortage of leg, he determined the disability at 30% and given Ex.P.6 wound certificate and Ex.P.13 Permanent disability certificate. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability. Normally, the Courts award a sum of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- for each percentage of disability. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, it is very reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,000/-for each percentage of disability. Accordingly, the compensation works out to Rs.60,000/-under this head as against a sum of Rs.50,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and also taking into consideration the period of treatment the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards Loss of Income during the treatment period. The claimant was hospitalised for 164 days. During that time, the claimant was not attended the work. Hence, it would be very reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head as against a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for extra nourishment. The claimant was hospitalised for 164 days. Therefore, considering the period of treatment and the nature of injuries sustained by him, it is very reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,500/-towards extra Nourishment. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. The accident occurred on 26.6.2002. Considering the prevailing rate of interest during that period the interest charged by the Tribunal is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as follows: Medical Bills Rs.1,00,000/-Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/-Loss of disability at 30% Rs. 60,000/-Transportation Rs. 10,000/-Loss of income during the treatment period Rs. 7,500/- Total Rs.2,17,500/-Less: Already awarded amount Rs.1,90,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 27,500 /- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.27,500/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.27,500/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of 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. 9. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.27,500/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of 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. 9. With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.