AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Karuppiah
The appellant has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded on 8.3.2005 passed in OP.No. 4719
of 1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Judge, Small Causes Court) Chennai. The appellant/claimant has filed claim petition
for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for injuries sustained by him by contending that on 7.7.1999 at about 9.15 am while the petitioner was trying
to cross the T.T.K. Road, from east to west, the driver of the first respondent''s car bearing Registration No. TN 01 M 2982 drove the car in rash
and negligent manner at dangerous speed from north to south and dashed against the petitioner and he sustained multiple injuries all over the body
and has taken treatment at Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai and St.Isabelah Hospital, Chennai and inspite of that he suffered permanent
disability and at the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 52 years and he was working as Superintendent and earning Rs. 5,300/-
per month + Rs. 3,700/- as allowances and hence he claimed compensation from the respondents who are owner and insurer of the vehicle.
The first respondent who is the owner of the vehicle remained exparte. Before the Tribunal, the second respondent-insurance company has
denied the alleged accident and also denied the nature of injuries, period of treatment, disability, loss of income, validity of the vehicle records and
driving licence.
Before the Tribunal, on the side of the appellant, the appellant who is injured himself deposed as PW.1 and examined one Dr.N.Saichandiran to
prove the disability and also marked Ex.P1-O.P.Chit, Ex.P2-Prescription, Ex.P3-medical certificate, Ex.P4-medical card, Ex.P5-medical bills,
Ex.P6-transport receipt, Ex.P7-leave certificate, Ex.P8-FIR, Ex.P9-disability certificate and Ex.P10-X ray. On the side of the respondents, no
witness was examined and no document was marked to prove their contention.
The Tribunal has considered the oral evidence of PW.1 and also Ex.P8-copy of FIR and discussed in detail and also considering the fact that no
contra evidence on the side of the respondents, has held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the first
respondent vehicle relying on the ruling reported in S.A. Ramachandran Vs. S. Neelavathy, . Further, on the side of the respondents who are
owner and insurer of the vehicle have not challenged the abovesaid finding of the Tribunal by filing any appeal.
Admittedly, the Tribunal has passed award on various heads as under:-
Transport expenses - Rs. 3,100.00
Extra-nourishment - Rs. 2,000.00
Medical expenses - Rs. 34,730.00
Pain and suffering - Rs. 5,000.00
Permanent disability - Rs. 40,000.00
Rs. 84,830.00
Aggrieved by the abovesaid award amount, the appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. The respondents have
not filed any appeal or cross-appeal as against the award passed by the Tribunal.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of income during the
treatment period and future medical expenses and meagre amount has been granted for pain and suffering, permanent disability etc and therefore
prayed for enhancement of compensation amount.
The learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance company has contended that the petitioner has already received Rs. 5,500/- from
E.S.I for loss of income during the treatment period and therefore the Tribunal has correctly not granted any amount for loss of income during the
treatment period and further contended that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove that the petitioner needs future treatment and
hence has not granted any amount to the abovesaid head and the Tribunal has considered the evidence and correctly passed the award on all
heads and therefore no need to interfere with the abovesaid award passed by the Tribunal.
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.
The appellant/claimant has filed the claim petition by stating that due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent vehicle the accident was
occurred and the petitioner sustained grievous and other injuries and therefore the first respondent and second respondent are liable to pay
compensation as owner and insurer of the vehicle.
The injured petitioner himself deposed as PW.1 and also marked Ex.P8-copy of FIR. On perusal of oral evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P8-copy
of FIR, the Tribunal has held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent''s vehicle
and second respondent is liable to pay compensation as insurer of the first respondent vehicle. In this appeal, the respondents have not challenged
the abovesaid finding regarding negligence and liability. The appellant alone has filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the
Tribunal has correctly held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent vehicle driver and hence the
second respondent is liable to pay compensation as insurer of the first respondent''s vehicle and hence no need to interfere with the abovesaid
finding.
With regard to quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has not considered the oral and
documentary evidence properly and the compensation awarded on various heads are very low and hence requested to enhance the compensation.
The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the Tribunal has not passed any award for loss of income during the treatment
period even though the appellant/petitioner has claimed Rs. 5000/- in the claim petition. The learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance
company has contended that the petitioner has already received Rs. 5,500/- from ESI for loss of income during the treatment period and therefore,
the Tribunal has correctly discussed in para 6 of the judgment that the petitioner himself admitted that he has received Rs. 5500/- from ESI and
therefore not entitled to any further amount for the abovesaid head. The learned counsel for the appellant has not specifically denied the abovesaid
fact. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance company and also held by the Tribunal, the
petitioner is not entitled to any amount under the head of loss of income during the treatment period.
With regard to transport expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,100/- considering Ex.P6 and oral evidence of PW.1. The petitioner has
sustained grievous injuries and due to the injuries, he has sustained 45% disability. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
and considering future treatment, Rs. 3100/- is to be enhanced to Rs. 5000/- for transport expenses. With regard to extra-nourishment, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries, no need to interfere with the abovesaid finding. With regard to medical
expenses, the petitioner has claimed Rs. 50,000/- but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 34,730/- on the basis of Ex.P5-medical bills. The learned
counsel for the appellant has contended that the petitioner has sustained 45% disability and also needs further treatment but the Tribunal has not
considered the abovesaid fact and wrongly passed award only for the amount mentioned in the bills and therefore it is to be enhanced. Considering
the nature of injuries, period of treatment and disability, I am of the view that the compensation for medical expenses is to be enhanced from Rs.
34,730/- to Rs. 40,000/-.
With regard to pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries, period of treatment and
disability sustained by the petitioner, I am of the view that the abovesaid amount is to be enhanced from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 7000/-. Admittedly, the
petitioner has sustained fracture in the right humerus. Further, he has taken treatment in three hospitals namely Sri Vidya Clinic, K.J. Hospital and
St.Isabel hospital and further he has taken treatment from 10.7.1999 to 14.7.1999 as in-patient in St.Isabel hospital as per Ex.P4. Further, from
the evidence of PW.2-Doctor and Ex.P9-disability certificate issued by him and Ex.P10-X ray, it is clear that the petitioner has sustained grievous
injury and 45% disability. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 40,000/- for permanent disability. The learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that the petitioner has sustained 45% disability, but the Tribunal without any sufficient reason has awarded only Rs. 40,000/- and hence
the compensation is to be enhanced under the head of permanent disability. On the side of the petitioner, he has not proved that after the accident,
he was not working as Superintendent as before the accident. There is no sufficient oral and documentary evidence to prove the abovesaid fact
and therefore considering the fact that even after the accident, the petitioner is working as before and also sustained 45% disability, I am of the
view that Rs. 45,000/- is to be awarded for permanent disability.
Accordingly, in this appeal, the award amount passed by the Tribunal is modified and fixed as under:-
Transport expenses Rs. 5,000.00
Extra nourishment Rs. 2,000.00
Medical expenses Rs. 40,000.00
Pain and suffering Rs. 7,000.00
Permanent disability Rs. 45,000.00
Total Rs. 99,000.00
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 84,830/- to Rs. 99,000/-
with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. Both sides admitted that the award amount passed by the Tribunal
has already been deposited and withdrawn by the petitioner. The second respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the remaining
amount in the enhanced award (i.e) Rs. 14,170/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the above said amount. No
costs.