Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 303 (MAD)

K. Jayaraman v. R. Kamalanathan & Another

2010-01-25

C.S.KARNAN

body2010
Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 19.09.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.3079 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V-Fast Track Court, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs.57,500/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation, excluding the period in which the petition was dismissed for default. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/petitioner, K.Jayaraman, has filed the above appeal praying to enhanced compensation. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 23.07.1997, at about 3.30 p.m. when the petitioner was standing on the right side of the Mettupalayam road and was engaged in transferring Brick Mud to Chamber, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN02 Z1410, drove the lorry from west to east on the road, in a rash and negligent manner, without any care or caution and hit the petitioner, who consequently fell down and was caught in between the right back wheel tyres. He sustained multiple and grievous injuries leading to partial and permanent disability. The driver of the said lorry is solely responsible for the accident; and the petitioner is in no way responsible for the accident. 4. The petitioner has sustained the following injuries: 1. 10 blunt injury and fracture of left pelvic, 2. Rupture of blader and blader wall contusion. A tear of about 2 ½ inches in the posterior wall of the bladder, 3. Two litres of blood stained fluid in the seritoreal cavity, 4. An intraperiteress rupture at about 2 ½ inches in the posterior wall of the bladder, 5. Contusion in rectrum, 6. Retroperitoreal Haematoma involving entire pelis right and left paracopic gutters, 7. Degloing injury of the medical and posterior aspect of left thigh, 8. Fracture public ramus and crolostoning, skin, 9. Fracture left superior public Remue, 10. Fracture right superior public Remue, 11. Skin graft from right thigh to left done, 12. Urological complications developed affecting kidney 13. Stomach dislocation – Abdomen painful, multiple and grievous injuries, 5. The petitioner initially took treatment as an in-patient in Stanley Government Hospital, Chennai, from 23.07.1997 to 29.11.1997 and subsequently took treatment as in-patient in Government Hospital, Sivagangai, from 06.12.1997 to 05.03.1998 and later on as out-patient. Urological complications developed affecting kidney 13. Stomach dislocation – Abdomen painful, multiple and grievous injuries, 5. The petitioner initially took treatment as an in-patient in Stanley Government Hospital, Chennai, from 23.07.1997 to 29.11.1997 and subsequently took treatment as in-patient in Government Hospital, Sivagangai, from 06.12.1997 to 05.03.1998 and later on as out-patient. Due to the accident, his left and right legs other parts of his body have been affected and he has sustained partial and permanent disability. 6. As such, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the first respondent, the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.TN02 Z1410 and the second respondent, the insurer of the said lorry under Section 166 Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been filed by Periapalayam Police Station as Crime No.593/1997 under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. 8. The second respondent/the United India Insurance Co., Ltd., in his Counter has resisted the claim denying the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the petitioner, nature of injuries, period of treatment, medical expenses, income and disability. Further, the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim was not admitted. It has been submitted that as the alleged accident had occurred within the work premises and if the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, he could do so only by claiming it under the Workmen Compensation Act and not before this Court. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner should prove that at the time of accident, the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with them and that the driver had a valid driving licence on the date of accident. It has further been submitted that the claim is excessive and should hence be dismissed with costs. 9. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle was set ex-parte by this Tribunal vide its Order dated 23.10.1998. 10. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN02 Z1410 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? (iii) To what other relief? 11. On the petitioners side three witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and eight documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P8. (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? (iii) To what other relief? 11. On the petitioners side three witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and eight documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P8. On the respondents side no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 12. The petitioner was examined as PW1. The PW1 in his evidence had stated that the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry alone and in support of this had marked Ex.P1, the FIR and Ex.P2, the Rough Sketch. The perusal of the FIR reveals that on the basis of the complaint given by one Kamalanathan, the Periapalayam Police had registered the case against the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN02 Z1410, in Crime No.593/1997, under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. There was six days delay in lodging the report. Further, in the Discharge Summary Sheet issued at the Government Hospital under Ex.P3, it is mentioned that the injuries sustained by petitioner was stated as "alleged to have had a H/o fall from the running tractor near Redhills". Unfortunately, no cross-examination was done with regard to this discrepancy and not even a suggestion was put to this witness in this regard. Hence, in the absence of any objection in this regard, the Tribunal was of the view that there was no necessity to give much credence to this discrepancy and as no contra evidence was adduced on the part of the second respondent, the Tribunal held that the said accident was caused due to the fault of the driver of the lorry alone. 13. It is the case of the petitioner that in the said accident, he sustained fracture in the left leg and also laceration on the left thigh and grievous injuries on the hip and right fore arm. He was immediately taken to the Stanley Hospital, wherein he took treatment as in-patient for six days. Surgery and skin grafting was done to him. Due to financial difficulties, he had discharged himself voluntarily from that hospital and had to go to his native place, wherein he continued to take treatment in the Government Hospital, Sivaganga as in-patient for nearly 20 days. The perusal of Ex.P3-the Discharge Summary Sheet reveals that the petitioner sustained fracture of pelvis with itrel extraperitoneal bladder rupture. Due to financial difficulties, he had discharged himself voluntarily from that hospital and had to go to his native place, wherein he continued to take treatment in the Government Hospital, Sivaganga as in-patient for nearly 20 days. The perusal of Ex.P3-the Discharge Summary Sheet reveals that the petitioner sustained fracture of pelvis with itrel extraperitoneal bladder rupture. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards pain and suffering. In the absence of any medical bills but considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and treatment undergone by him, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards medical and other incidental expenses. 14. The petitioner has also claimed compensation for loss of earning during the period of treatment. Though in the oral evidence, he had stated that due to the injuries sustained by him, he could not attend the work for nearly a year, no other evidence was produced in this regard. Further, as per the Discharge Summary Sheet issued at the Government Hospital as Ex.P3, the petitioner was an in-patient from 23.07.1997 to 20.11.1997. Thereafter, as per Ex.P5, the petitioner only took treatment as an outpatient. Hence, in the absence of documentary evidence, and on considering that the petitioner was an unskilled labourer and also considering the period of treatment, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/-as loss of income for a period of five months, taking as Rs.1,500/- as his notional income. 15. The petitioner examined the Doctor, who issued the Disability Certificate (Ex.P8) as PW2. As per the oral evidence of PW2, he had examined the petitioner on 21.12.1998 and 01.08.2007 and had found that he suffers 60% partial permanent disability. During the course of cross-examination, he had admitted that he had no knowledge, whether the petitioner took continuous treatment after 1998. The PW2 had also admitted that if the petitioner had suffered any urinal problem, he could have taken continuous treatment. He had also admitted that at the time of examining the petitioner on 01.08.2007, he had not directed the petitioner to take any X-ray. 16. Hence, the Tribunal, on considering that no documentary evidence has been advanced by the petitioner to prove that continuous treatment had been taken by him, were of the view that the disability stated by PW2 was on the higher side. 16. Hence, the Tribunal, on considering that no documentary evidence has been advanced by the petitioner to prove that continuous treatment had been taken by him, were of the view that the disability stated by PW2 was on the higher side. But, the Tribunal on considering that the petitioner sustained fracture in the pelvic region in the year 1998 itself and that Xrays taken on this portion had shown it to be mal-united, were of the view that the petitioner has lost his normal bone structure and that such deviation would cause difficulties in his day-to-day work. Considering this fact, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of permanent agony. 17. In total, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.57,500/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit excluding the period in which the claim petition was dismissed for default and restored and costs. 18. The Tribunal directed the second respondent to deposit the award amount with accrued interest, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.3079 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V-Fast Track Court, Chennai, within a period of three months from the date of its Order and that after such deposit was made, the award amount with accrued interest was to be deposited in a nationalised bank as fixed deposit for a period of three years. The excess Court fee paid by the petitioner was ordered to be refunded to him. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.1,000/-. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal had erred in disbelieving the oral and documentary evidence of PW1 as to the loss of income at Rs.4,000/-per month and other consequential aspects of injury sustained. Further, it has been contended that the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the fact that PW1 has no physical capacity to work in future as he used to work before the date of accident and had only allowed a sum of Rs.20,000/-for loss of earning power in spite of the evidence given by the petitioner and PW2, the Doctor. It has also been contended that the Tribunal, while accepting PW1s monthly income at Rs.4,000/- erred in fixing only Rs.1,500/- as his monthly income for assessment of compensation. It has also been contended that the Tribunal, while accepting PW1s monthly income at Rs.4,000/- erred in fixing only Rs.1,500/- as his monthly income for assessment of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Tribunal had erred in slashing the disability from 60% to 30%, thereby reducing the amount of award from Rs.60,000/-to Rs.30,000/- without properly analysing the evidence of PW2. Further, it has been pointed out by the appellants counsel that the Tribunal had failed to consider the life long suffering of the appellant/petitioner due to the accident and ought to have awarded a higher compensation, especially considering the fact that the appellant/petitioner has been treated as an in-patient in the hospital for a period of 150 days and has suffered a disability and loss of earning power. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal had erred in deducting interest for 515 days of delay in filing restoration petitions. 20. As such, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has prayed for enhanced compensation. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the injured claimant was an in-patient in the hospital for only 60 days. He has mentioned number of injuries sustained by him, but has enclosed no documents as medical proof. If the appellant has really suffered such grievous injured, he would have been admitted in the hospital for a longer period for recovery of his health. Further, the appellant has produced no income proof to prove that he was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month at the time of accident. The Tribunal, after considering the medical records, evidence of the claimant and his Doctor, had granted a sum of Rs.57,500/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which is reasonable and fair. As such, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation is not maintainable. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on scrutiny of the Exs.P3 to P8, which are connected records pertaining to medical treatment and nature of injuries and arguments advanced by the learned counsels for their respective parties, the Court is of the view to grant enhanced compensation to the appellant/claimant, as follows: 1. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-for disability of 60% sustained by the claimant. This Court awards a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-for 60% disability, considering that the claimant has sustained 13 injuries. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-for disability of 60% sustained by the claimant. This Court awards a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-for 60% disability, considering that the claimant has sustained 13 injuries. It is also found that skin grafting has been done on the petitioner and that the claimant has Urological problems affecting his Kidney. 2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-to the claimant for pain and suffering. This Court awards a sum of Rs.25,000/-to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering. 3. The grant of Rs.7,500/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income sustained by the claimant. This Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/-to the claimant under the head of loss of income for five months. 4. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-for medical expenses and this Court confirms the award granted under the said head. 5. This Court awards a sum of Rs.5,000/- for transport expenses. 6. This Court awards a sum of Rs.5,000/- for nutrition. 23. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.57,500/-to the claimant with 9% interest per annum and this Court enhances the compensation granted to the claimant from Rs.57,500/- to Rs.1,70,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. The interest will not be applicable on the award amount during the default period (ie.515 days during which the claim petition was dismissed for default). 24. Therefore, this Court hereby directs the respondent/United India Insurance Company Ltd., to deposit the entire compensation amount awarded by this Court, together with interest, excluding interest for default period, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.3079 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V-Fast Track Court, Chennai, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of this Order, subject to deduction of earlier compensation amount deposited by the Insurance Company. The additional compensation amount of Rs.1,12,500/-granted by this Court will carry an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till the date of payment of compensation, excluding the period of 515 days for default. 25. The additional compensation amount of Rs.1,12,500/-granted by this Court will carry an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till the date of payment of compensation, excluding the period of 515 days for default. 25. As the accident happened in the year 1997, it is open to the claimant/appellant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.3079 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V-Fast Track Court, Chennai, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law. 26. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 19.09.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V-Fast Track Court, Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.3079 of 1998, is modified. No costs.