Ponraj vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.

S. Vimala, J.—The claimant Ponraj has filed a claim petition for compensation in MCOP No. 1680 of 2005 claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in respect of the accident which took place on 04.11.2005, in which the bus bearing Registration No. TN-69-X-4282 belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli, the respondent in CMA(MD)No. 380 of 2010, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the Hero Honda motorcycle in which the claimant Ponraj was driving. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- as compensation. The break-up details of the compensation are as under:

Challenging the award as excessive, the Transport Corporation has filed the appeal in CMA(MD)No. 1129 of 2009, and for enhancement, the claimant Ponraj has filed the appeal in CMA(MD)No. 380 of 2010.

In respect of the same accident, the claimant Kakkum Perumal was a pillion rider in the said two-wheeler, and he also sustained injuries and he made a claim in MCOP No. 1678 of 2005 claiming a compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The Tribunal, on consideration of the materials placed before it, granted a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- as compensation. The break-up details of the compensation are as under:

As against the claim awarded for a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/-, contending that the award amount is very low, claiming enhancement, the claimant has filed the appeal in CMA(MD)No. 381 of 2010. The Transport Corporation has filed the appeal in CMA(MD)No. 862 of 2009.

The claimant Ponraj was aged 23 years at the time of accident. According to him, he was working in Emerald Jewellery, earning enormous amount and because of the accident, he was not able to work as before.

The claimant Kakkum Perumal was aged 22 years at the time of accident. According to him, he was working as Mill Labour and earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month, and because of the accident, he was not able to work as before.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation that no evidence was adduced to show the income and therefore, the Tribunal is not correct in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of income, in respect of claim of Ponraj, and in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of income, in respect of claim of Kakkum Perumal, and therefore, the same deserves reduction. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the Tribunal has taken only the notional income as the basis, and therefore, there is no scope for reduction. The permanent disability, according to the Doctor, was 60% in respect of Ponraj and 80% in respect of Kakkum Perumal.

In order to appreciate the contentions raised on both sides, it is necessary to look into the nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment, medical expenses incurred, percentage of disability and the impact of disability upon the functional ability of the claimants.

So far as the claimant Ponraj is concerned, the details of injuries sustained, details of surgeries performed and the percentage of disability are furnished hereunder:

Injuries:

Fracture over the right leg comminuted # both bones.

Fracture over the right leg shaft.

Fracture over the right leg neck of femur.

Multiple injuries all over the body.

Treatments undertaken:

(1) Two operations were done in the right leg femur and right leg ankle in the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli from 04.11.2005 to 27.12.2005;

(2) Took treatment from 06.08.2006 to 16.08.2006 in Sudharsan Private Hospital and

(3) Took treatment from 27.12.2006 to 13.02.2007 in the Government Hospital.

These details would include the period of hospitalisation also.

So far as the claimant Ponraj is concerned, the compensation awarded is Rs. 2,10,000/-. The period of treatment in this case was from 04.11.2005 to 27.12.2005 and thereafter during the year 2006, for the period from 06.08.2006 to 16.08.2006 and from 27.12.2006 to 13.02.2007. According to the evidence of the Doctor, there had been replacement of hip bone done through hip replacement surgery. Apart from that, there was fracture in the right leg leading to malunion. The injury over the hip and the injury over the right light would make him immobile, and if mobile, he had to walk only with difficulty. For the three surgeries performed, the Tribunal ought to have given more, and what is already granted at Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering is less. Therefore, the compensation on account of pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is additionally granted towards loss of enjoyment of amenities. Therefore, there will be an overall enhancement of Rs. 75,000/-. The details of the modified compensation are as under:

The Transport Corporation shall deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 75,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of enhancement, till the date of deposit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.

So far as the claim of Kakkum Perumal is concerned, he has underwent as many as 4 surgeries, the details of which are furnished hereunder:

(1) Operation in right chin in the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli from 04.11.2005 to 08.11.2005;

(2) Operation in the right hand and right leg, insertion of plate and also skin grafting in Krishna Private Hospital from 08.11.2005 to 17.12.2005;

(3) Implants were removed from the leg and hand and a new plate was inserted in Bell Hospital from 18.01.2006 to 30.01.2006;

(4) Implants were removed from the right leg and new plate was inserted in the right leg in Susruma Hospital, Nagercoil, from 05.02.2006 to 16.02.2006.

Having regard to the nature of surgeries performed, one can conclude in the case of Kakkum Perumal that it would certainly result in loss of marriage prospects. He has undergone surgery in the right chin which has resulted in disfigurement. When there is disfigurement, certainly nobody would come forward to marry him. The disability in chin is followed by disability in the right hand as well as in the right leg. Considering the overall disability, one can conclude that it will certainly result in reduction of the earning capacity. The period of hospitalisation even during the year 2005 was from 04.11.2005 to 08.11.2005 and thereafter it continued up to 17.12.2005. During the year 2006 also, there is continuous hospitalisation from 18.01.2006 to 30.01.2006 and thereafter from 05.02.2006 to 16.02.2006. Considering the overall circumstances, it is evident that the compensation awarded for pain and suffering is very low. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 65,000/-, and the loss of marriage prospects is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-. Therefore, there will be an overall enhancement of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The details of the modified compensation are as under:

The Transport Corporation shall deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of enhancement, till the date of deposit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.

In the result, CMA(MD)Nos.380 of 2010 and 381 of 2010 filed by the claimants, are partly allowed. No costs.

In view of the orders passed in the above two appeals, CMA(MD)Nos.862 of 2009 and 1129 of 2009 filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the quantum as excessive, are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.