AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—This appeal is preferred by the claimant against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2004 made in M.C.O.P. No. 233 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The injured-Muneeswari met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 19.03.2000 at about 12.00 Noon. The said injured was a passenger in a bus, bearing Registration No. TN.59-N-0697 belonging to the third Respondent/Transport Corporation. The said bus was proceeding from North to South direction in the Rajapalayam-Tenkasi Road. When the said bus was nearing Venkateshwara Bricks Kiln, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-09-F-8899, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus. Due to the same, the claimant sustained fracture and multiple injuries all over the body. She claimed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-as compensation. The said lorry was insured with the second Respondent-Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:
Who is responsible for the accident and who is liable to pay the compensation?
To what amount the claimant is entitled to?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded a compensation of Rs. 90,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Loss due to permanent disability Rs. 50,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 25,000/- Transport charges and extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- Total... Rs. 90,000/- Aggrieved by that award, the claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a very low and meagre sum of compensation without any basis and justification. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by the claimant. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, this is a fit case for enhancement.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents have submitted 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.
Heard the counsel and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the Appellant-claimant, P. Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the Respondents one Baskaran was examined as R.W.1, who is the conductor of the bus and Ex.R1-certified copy of the judgment in M.C.O.P. No. 226 of 2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur, was marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr. Sankarlal. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the Observation Mahazar. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam. Ex.P4 is the xerox copy of the Accident Register of the claimant. Ex.P5 are the series of Prescriptions. Ex.P6 are the series of Medical Bills. Ex.P7 is the Treatment Record of the claimant. Ex.P8 is the Permanent Disability Certificate given by the Doctor. Ex.P9 are the series of X-ray films. Ex.P10 are the series of Scans. Ex.P11 are the Blood Test Report and Scan Report. Ex.P12 are the series of X-ray and Medical bills receipts. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence and it is a question of fact. Hence the same is confirmed.
At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 20 years. She was working in National Match Works and engaged in manufacturing match boxes. She was earning a sum of Rs. 990/-per month. P.W.1, the claimant in her evidence, has stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the driver was also charge-sheeted by Rajapalayam South Police Station in Crime No. 215/2000 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. Due to the accident, she sustained fracture in the right leg below the knee and the right foot was completely crushed and plates were also inserted she also sustained serious injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident she was admitted in the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam, and later she took treatment in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and also in the G.V. National Hospital, Rajapalayam. It is seen from the records that she was originally admitted in the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam, and later she was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. She was admitted in the hospital as in-patient from 19.03.2000 to 23.06.2000. Two operations were done and also two plates were fixed. Later she was admitted as inpatient in G.V. National Hospital, Rajapalayam on 25.07.2000 and there also, operations were done. She was discharged on 03.12.2001. PW.2, the doctor, examined the claimant and determined the disability at 60% and issued Ex.P8 Disability Certificate. In the evidence of the Doctor, he has stated that due to the said injuries, the claimant is unable to do her work as before. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 50% and awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-towards loss due to 50% disability. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-claimant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have reduced the percentage of disability and also the amount awarded under this head is very low and meagre. Once the Doctor assessed the disability, the Tribunal ought not to have reduced the same from 60% to 50%. Therefore, in the present case the disability assessed by the Doctor only has to be taken into consideration. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-towards loss due to 60% disability as against Rs. 50,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. There is no dispute regarding the same. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/-towards medical expenses. Exs.P5, P6, P9, P10 and P12 are the series of the Medical Bills. It is an actual expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/-towards medical expenses, which is also very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards transport and extra nourishment. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the same. She has taken treatment in various hospitals i.e., in Rajapalayam as well as in Madurai. Therefore, after taking into consideration of the same, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards transport charges and another sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards extra nourishment as against the consolidated sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards transport charges and extra nourishment awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-towards pain and suffering, which is very low and meagre. After taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries and also the fact that she was in the hospital as in-patient, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 15,000/-towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges. She was in the hospital from 19.03.2000 to 23.06.2000 and also from 25.07.2000 to 03.12.2001. Therefore, during the treatment period definitely she would have taken the assistance of an attender. Therefore, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards attendant charges. The Tribunal has fixed the interest rate at 9% per annum. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and the prevailing rate of interest during that time, the interest fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:
Loss due to permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 25,000/- Transport charges Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/- Total... Rs. 1,55,000/- Less: Already amount awarded Rs. 90,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 65,000/-
Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 65,000/-. With regard to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 65,000/-the interest shall be 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition.
Learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 65,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition within a period of six 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.
With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.