AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent/United India Insurance
Company Limited, against the Award and Decree passed in M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2005, dated 21.11.2006, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Paramakudi, for awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,35,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant herein filed this
appeal to reduce the said compensation from a sum of Rs. 2,35,000/-.
The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 15.07.2005 at about 11.10 a.m., the claimant and his co-worker were proceeding on the Madurai-Rameswaram National Highways Road.
When they were nearing Kattu Paramakudi Muthiah Kovil, the lorry belonging to the second respondent herein, bearing Registration No. TTR-
4972 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. In the result, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately,
he was rushed to the Government Hospital, Paramakudi, for preliminary treatment. Subsequently, for better treatment, he was referred to Rajaji
Government Hospital, Madurai, wherein he underwent treatment for about four months as an inpatient. The claimant further narrated in his claim
petition stating that he was a loadman and at the time of accident, his age was 53 years old. His earning was Rs. 5,000/- per month. Further, he
has stated in his claim petition that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle in Crime No. 236 of 2005. The said
case was investigated by the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station. The driver of the vehicle was charged for the alleged offence
punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The claimant has further stated in his claim petition that he was the only
breadwinner for the entire family. Hence, he claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation against the respondents therein. The offending
vehicle of the second respondent is insured with the appellant Insurance Company. As such, both the second respondent and the appellant
Insurance Company are liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the claimant.
The second respondent herein/first respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2005 was set exparte before the Tribunal. The appellant United India
Insurance Company had filed counter statement and resisted the claim. In the counter statement, the appellant Insurance Company has stated that
the said accident had happened due to the rashness and negligence of the claimant. As such, he is not entitled for any compensation against the
Insurance Company. Further, as per medical records, the age of the claimant was 70 years. The appellant further stated that the claimant was not a
load man and his earning was not Rs. 5,000/- per month. The appellant categorically denied the age and income of the claimant. As such, the
compensation claimed by the claimant is an exorbitant one.
Considering the contents of the claim petition and the counter statement of the appellant Insurance Company, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Sub Court, Paramakudi has framed the following three issues:
(1) Whether the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle?
(2) If so, what is the quantum of compensation, the claimant is entitled to? and
(3) What other reliefs, the claimant is entitled to?
On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and nine documents were marked. The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one
Ganesan was examined as P.W.2 as eye witness. The below mentioned exhibits were marked before the Tribunal:
(i) Ex.P.1-First Information Report
(ii) Ex.P.2-Rough sketch.
(iii) Ex.P.3-Accident Register.
(iv) Ex.P.4-Motor Vehicle Inspector''s report.
(v) Ex.P.5-Charge sheet.
(vi) Ex.P.6-Claimant''s membership card.
(vii) Ex.P.7-Rajaji Government Hospital''s Medical Records.
(viii) Ex.P.8-Claimant''s case sheet.
(ix) Ex.P.9-Claimant''s voter identity card.
The claimant, who was examined as P.W.1, had adduced evidence before the Tribunal stating that he and one Ganesan were proceeding on the
Madurai-Rameswaram National Highways Road. When they were nearing Kattu Paramakudi Muthiah Kovil, at that time, the offending vehicle
came at high speed and dashed against him. In the result, he sustained grievous injuries on his right leg, right shoulder, right jaw and also on his right
hand. Further, he had adduced evidence stating that immediately, he was admitted at Government Hospital, Paramakudi, wherein he underwent
treatment from 15.07.2005 to 20.09.2005 as inpatient. During the period of treatment, he had undergone plastic surgical operation on his right leg
and steel plate also fixed on his right leg. The claimant further adduced evidence stating that at the time of accident, he was a load-man and his
earning was Rs. 5,000/- including daily batta.
The claimant had adduced evidence stating that his age was 53 years at the time of accident. To prove his age, he has also marked voter identity
card and membership card, which was issued by the Labour Union, Paramakudi.
On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documents were marked.
Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and on perusal of Exs.P.1 to P.9, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Paramakudi,
had assessed the compensation of the claimant as follows.
The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the income of the claimant was Rs. 2,250/-. As such, his earning was Rs. 27,000/- per year. The
Tribunal also had come to the conclusion that his age was in between 55 and 60, as such, adopted the multiplier as ''8''. Further, the Tribunal,
considering the nature of injuries and bone fractures and amputation on the right leg of the claimant, adopted the multiplier method and fixed the
loss of income as Rs. 27,000 x 8 = Rs. 2,16,000/-. This amount was awarded under the head of permanent loss of income to the claimant.
Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,000/- under the head of transport expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- under the head of pain and
suffering. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head of attendant charges. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.
2,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.
The Tribunal further directed the second respondent/appellant herein to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest at the rate of
7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition and also the proportionate costs, within a period of two months from the date of filing of the claim
petition. Out of the said Award amount, the claimant was permitted to withdraw only a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. Further, the Tribunal directed to
deposit the balance compensation amount in a Nationalised Bank for a period of three years under the fixed deposit scheme. The Tribunal also
fixed a sum of Rs. 7,700/- towards Advocate fee and accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the said Award.
Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent/United India Insurance Company, has filed this Appeal on various
grounds.
The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that there was no evidence to prove the income of the claimant at the time of accident. As
such, the Tribunal fixed the income of the claimant as Rs. 75/- per day and calculated his monthly income at Rs. 2,250/-, which is an erroneous
one. The learned Counsel further pointed out that out of the said income, one third has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. But, in this
case, without deducting one third amount, the compensation was calculated, which is also an erroneous one.
Further, the learned Counsel pointed out that as per medical records, the age of the claimant was 70 at the time of accident. But, without any
vital document, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the age of the claimant was in between 55 and 60 at the time of accident. As such, the
age fixation of the claimant is also an erroneous one. If the age of the claimant was 70 at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier to be
adopted is ''5''. However, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier as ''8'', which is also on higher side. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and hence, the learned Counsel prayed before this Court to scale down
the compensation amount from Rs. 2,35,000/-.
The learned Counsel for the first respondent/claimant argued that at the time of accident, the claimant was hale and healthy. He was the only
breadwinner for the entire family. He is a hard worker as load man. As such, his earning was Rs. 5,000/- per month including daily batta. The
learned Counsel further pointed out that at the time of admission in the hospital, the third person had given particulars stating that the claimant''s age
was 70. The voter identity card and membership card, which was issued by the Labour Union are the relevant documents to prove the age of the
claimant as 53. This was rightly considered by the Tribunal. As such, there is no error on the age fixation.
The learned Counsel further pointed out that the claimant''s right leg below knee was amputated. As such, without an attender, he was unable
to move from place to place. Further, he has sustained injuries on his chest, right shoulder, right leg, etc. The learned Counsel further pointed out
that the claimant was hospitalised for more than four months. Considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment, the Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs. 5,000/- for attendant charges, which is on lower side and for transport expenditure, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was awarded, which is also
on lower side. Considering the nature of injuries and disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering,
which is also on lower side. The learned Counsel further argued that the Tribunal awarded the compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5%,
which is reasonable and fair. Under the said circumstances, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the argument of the learned
Counsel for the first respondent/claimant, this Court is of the view that the claimant was hospitalised from 15.07.2005 to 20.09.2005, and during
the medical treatment period, the claimant had undergone plastic surgical operation on his right leg and his right leg was shortened about two feet,
and as such, amputation had happened and the Tribunal fixed the income of the claimant as Rs. 2,250/- per month, which is also proper and the
Tribunal also fixed his age as ''55'' on the strength of membership card, which was issued by the Labour Union and valid voter identity card. As
such, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier method as Rs. 27,000 x 8 = Rs. 2,16,000/-, which was awarded under the head of loss of income.
Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- under the head of transport expenses, Rs. 10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and
Rs. 5,000/- was awarded under the head of attendant charges. In total, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%,
which is fair and equitable.
This Court, while granting an order of interim stay in M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2008, imposed a condition on the appellant Insurance Company to
deposit the entire compensation amount to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court,
Paramakudi. After such deposit was made, the claimant was also permitted to withdraw half of the claim amount. As the accident had happened in
the year 2005, this Court has permitted the claimant/first respondent herein to withdraw the balance compensation amount with accrued interest,
which is lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Paramakudi, after filing
necessary payment out of application, in accordance with law.
In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and decree dated 21.11.2006 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Paramakudi, in M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2005 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.