Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2713 (MAD)

P. Priyanka v. Pitchaikani

2013-07-29

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
JUDGMENT The claimant has filed the claim petition against the respondents herein stating that on 20.06.2003, at about 4.30 p.m., when she was standing on the Old Mahabalipuram Road, the Auto bearing Registration No.TN-07-Q-1435, driven by its driver in a reckless manner had dashed against her. As a result, she had sustained injuries. Hence, the claim has been filed by the father of the minor claimant. 2. The National Insurance Company Limited has filed counter statement and refuted the claim petition. The respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding manner of accident, age, educational status, disability, medical expenses. The respondent further stated that the driver of the Auto had not committed the said accident and he was not possessing valid driving licence. Further, the complaint had been lodged after a delay of 40 days. As such, the claim is not genuine. 3. On verifying the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 4.On the side of the minor claimant, her father and two Doctors were examined and 11 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P11 namely Ex.P1-Auto Card of 1st respondent; Ex.P2-Complaint copy; Ex.P3-F.I.R.; Ex.P4-Discharge Summary; Ex.P5-C.T.Scan report; Ex.P6-Prescriptions; Ex.P7-Medical bills for Rs.3,785/-; Ex.P8-Photo with C.D.; Ex.P9-Disability certificate; Ex.P10-X-ray; and Ex.P11-Disability Certificate. On the respondents' side, no documents, no oral evidence. PW1, the father of the injured had adduced evidence that on 20.06.2003, at about 4.30 p.m., when his daughter was proceeding on the Old Mahabalipuram Road, the Auto bearing Registration No.TN-07-Q-1435, driven by its driver in a negligent manner had dashed against her. Immediately, she was taken to Indhira Nagar Hospital. PW1 further stated that his daughter was aged about 8 years and she is studying at Adarsh Higher Secondary School in 2nd Standard. PW1 further stated that his daughter had sustained multiple head injuries and her skull was fractured and her facial bones were also fractured. She underwent treatment for a period of 7 days as inpatient. Her right eye-lid had been injured and as such her vision has been impaired. Hence, the Doctor, who is the Ophthalmologist had given disability certificate. 5. PW2, Ophthalmologist had certified that the claimant has sustained 10% disability and the Ortho Doctor had certified that the claimant had sustained 25% disability. Her right eye-lid had been injured and as such her vision has been impaired. Hence, the Doctor, who is the Ophthalmologist had given disability certificate. 5. PW2, Ophthalmologist had certified that the claimant has sustained 10% disability and the Ortho Doctor had certified that the claimant had sustained 25% disability. The evidence of both the Doctors was in similar lines to evidence of PW1 regarding nature of injuries. On considering the evidence of witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.67,000/- as compensation. 6. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the above appeal has been filed. The learned counsel for the claimant vehemently argued that the claimant had sustained head injuries and as a result, the skull bone and facial bone were fractured and her eye vision had been impaired. As such, the minor girl's studies have been affected. The minor has sustained permanent disfigurement of the face. The Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the relevant heads. 7. The very competent counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the claimant had sustained minor injuries. However, the Doctors have certified that she had sustained 35% disability, which is on the higher side. Further, the Tribunal had granted adequate compensation under the relevant heads namely Transport, Medical expenses, Pain and suffering, Nourishment and Disability. As such, there is no lacuna in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 8. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence and liability. However, the quantum of compensation is on the lower side, since as per the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3, it is seen that the claimant had sustained head injuries and she has sustained 35% disability and her eye vision has been impaired. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant additional compensation. This Court reassesses compensation as below:- Rs.70,000/- towards disability; Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- for transport expenses; Rs.5,000/- for nutrition; Rs.5,000/- under the head of attender charges; Rs.4,000/- under the head of medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and loss of comfort due to disfigurement. In total, this Court awards Rs.1,14,000/- as compensation. This Court reassesses compensation as below:- Rs.70,000/- towards disability; Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- for transport expenses; Rs.5,000/- for nutrition; Rs.5,000/- under the head of attender charges; Rs.4,000/- under the head of medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and loss of comfort due to disfigurement. In total, this Court awards Rs.1,14,000/- as compensation. After deducting the initial compensation amount of a sum of Rs.67,000/-, this Court awards Rs.47,000/- as additional compensation, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment of compensation. This Court directs the National Insurance Company Limited to deposit the said amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the minor claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2598 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (V Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order, subject to her attaining the age of a major. 10. In the result, the above appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.2598 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (V Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, dated 23.12.2008, is modified. No costs.