AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Sudhakar, J.—The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2002 made
in M.C.O.P. No. 313 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court), Tirunelveli.
It is a case of injury. On 28.06.1997, one Suresh, aged about 28 years old, a bachelor, was standing on the road along with his friend. He was
hit by the Transport Corporation bus and in that accident, Suresh and his friend suffered serious and grievous injuries. The claimant in the present
case Suresh suffered bleeding injury over the neck, left arm, head, nose and other parts of the body. He was immediately rushed to the
Government Headquarters Hospital, Tuticorin and, thereafter, taken for treatment to the Meenakshi Mission Hospital at Madurai. Consequent to
the accident and injury, according to the mother, who has deposed on behalf of the claimant, her son has lost his ability to walk and has become a
paraplegic. He also lost his ability to speak and the movements of hands is very much affected and, therefore, he was unable to make any form of
communication to the family members, which is affecting his day-today life. He has become totally immobile and has no sense of time or life. It is
contended that he is surviving because of the support of the family members, who are dedicated and are managing his existence. Due to the
grievous and serious nature of injuries, the son has become a vegetable and there is no semblance of normal human activity. According to the
mother, her son is bedridden and is almost a dead person.
According to her, the son was a very active young man and an earning member of the family. He was hale and healthy and consequent to the
accident, his future has been completely ruined. His marriage prospect totally lost. He is unable to utilize his hands and legs for eating and for other
day-to-day activities and, therefore, there is a total loss of amenities. A sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was claimed as compensation.
In support of the claim, the mother was examined as P.W.2. One Ganga Adhityan, another victim was examined as P.W.1. The Doctor, who
assessed the disability, was examined as P.W.3. Insofar as the present claimant is concerned, Exs.P.1 to P.24 were marked, of which Exs.P.2 and
P. 3 relate to the other claimant and all other exhibits are relatable to the present claimant, the details of which are as follows:
Ex.P.1 is the copy of First Information Report
Ex.P.2 is the discharge summary of Ganga Adhityan
Ex.P.3 is the C.T. Scan report relates to Ganga Adhityan
Ex.P.4 is the C.T. Scan bill
Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate of the claimant Suresh
Ex.P.6 is the discharge summary of Suresh
Ex.P.7 is the x-ray
Ex.P.8 is the C.T. Scan report of Suresh
Ex.P.9 is the copy of out-patient record of Suresh
Ex.P.10 is the scan
Ex.P.11 is the Registration Certificate of Small Scale Industries
Ex.P.12 is the summon of District Industries Centre
Ex.P.13 is the copy of L.I.C. Policy of Suresh
Ex.P.14 is the discharge certificate
Ex.P.15 is the Provisional Certificate
Ex.P.16 is the Typing Certificate
Ex.P.17 is the receipt for travel by car to Madurai
Ex.P.18 is the prescription records
Ex.P.19 is the medical bills
Ex.P.20 is the bills given by the hospital
Ex.P.21 is the bills for x-ray and scan
Ex.P.22 is the C.T. Scan
Ex.P.23 is the report of C.T. Scan
Ex.P.24 is the disability certificate
On behalf of the Appellant, only one witness was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked.
As per the claim, the claimant, 28 years old bachelor, possessed the following qualification:
(i) He was qualified as a Junior Grade Typist certified by the Department of Technical Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Ex.P.16.
(ii) Ex.P.11 is the licence issued by the Directorate of Industries, Government of Tamil Nadu, granting him permission to manufacture and sell
aerated water.
(iii) Ex.P.15 is the Provisional Certificate issued in October, 1992 by the Government of Tamil Nadu, State Board of Technical Education,
certifying the injured claimant as holder of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering.
It is claimed that the injured claimant had multiple source of income; (i) manufacture and sale of aerated water, (ii) mechanical workshop. He
was a very industrious and an active young man and was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month.
Insofar as the injury is concerned, Ex.P.4-medical records, Ex.P.5-Wound Certificate and discharge summary-Ex.P.6 clearly goes to show that
at the time of admission at the Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre at Madurai, the patient was unconscious and was responding
only to deep painful stimuli and the pupils was small in size and constricted. He was treated in the above said private hospital from 29.06.1997 and
discharged on 24.09.1997 i.e., after more than three months. The first CT scan report reads as follows:
Movement artifacts
No midline shift.
Frontal horns slit like,
No lat.ventricle body seen,
Fourth ventricle midline,
Brain stem cisterns visualized
No bony injury to skull.
The second scan report shows that there is a grievous injury to the head region, which reads as follows:
Multiple hypodense areas involving bifrontal white matter and corpus collusum with effaced sulcal space suggesting the possibility of diffuse
axonal injury.
Left fonto parietal sub dural collection
Infracts involving posterior limb of both internal capsule and putamen.
C.T. Thorax: Alveolao opacification (Pneumonitis) involving posterior segment of lower lobe.
Even during the course of treatment, the patient was on ventilator for ten days and he was suffering from recurrent chest infection. He was
treated with antibiotics, antioedema measures, anti convulsants and regular intensive physiotherapy for limbs and chest. This only establishes the
deteriorated health condition of the injured claimant. The medical management has helped to avoid brain death and that is the saving grace, much to
the agony of the young man who has to suffer for the rest of his life.
The doctor, who assessed the disability, took note of the medical records and after assessing the various parameters, opined as follows:
conscious, speech monosyllables, not oriented, spasticity of limbs, left hemiparesis, totally dependent on others for activities of daily living
The disability was assessed as 100%. As per the evidence of the doctor, the injured young man was unable to sit, stand or walk by himself. He
was totally dependent on other persons for his day-to-day activities and this continued for more than five years i.e., till the date of issue of disability
certificate. Based on all these parameters, the Tribunal proceeded to adjudicate the claim.
Insofar as the negligence and liability are concerned, there is no serious dispute raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, as it was
clearly held that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus and the two
persons were only standing on the side of the road. There is no fault on their part. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to differ with the finding of
the Tribunal on that account and hence, the said findings stand confirmed.
Insofar as the income is concerned, the Tribunal took note of Ex.P.11, Certificate issued for manufacture of aerated water, Ex.P.13-LIC
policy receipts and Ex.P.12, document to show that the injured claimant had taken loan for developing his business prospects and thereby, fixed
the income of the injured claimant at Rs. 2,500/- per month. The Tribunal, based on the medical records and the doctor''s evidence, accepted the
disability certificate in its entirety and concluded that the claimant had lost his earning capacity totally. The Tribunal, considering the nature of injury,
treatment given and the disability assessed, by adopting ''17'' multiplier, granted a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- towards loss of income in the following
manner (Rs. 2,500�17�12)=Rs. 5,10,000/-.
In all, the Tribunal granted the compensation on the following heads with interest at the rate of 9% per annum:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl. No. Head Amount awarded by
the Tribunal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 For loss of income Rs. 5,10,000/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 for loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For hardship, discomforts, mental Rs. 20,000/-
3 agony and loss of happiness of life
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 For permanent disability at 100% Rs. 1,00,000/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 for pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 for transport expenses Rs. 25,695/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 for extra-nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 for medical expenses Rs. 2,43,140/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Rs. 10,58,835/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The learned Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that since substantial amount has been granted for loss of income by adopting multiplier
method, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs. 1,00,000/- for disability at 100% and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of
happiness of life, awarded is excessive. He also contended that the multiplier ''17'' adopted by the Tribunal is excessive, as it is not a case of death.
Mr. T. Selvamurugan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/claimant, in order to justify the compensation and at the request of the
mother of the claimant, requested that the claimant should be examined in person to ascertain his condition as on today. The claimant was brought
to this Court and physically presented to establish the claimant''s case. He submitted that the claimant was aged about 28 years and a bachelor at
the time of accident. He is totally immobile and he is living a life, totally depending on others. Further, his health is deteriorating day-by-day and as
a consequence of the grievous injury, the muscles of the body are wasted and thereby, he is suffering more agony and pain. The mother and other
relatives are put to great hardship, as they have to take care of the young man for the rest of his life.
The learned Counsel further submitted that the income fixed by the Tribunal is very less and the Tribunal failed to take note of the Diploma in
Mechanical Engineering Certificate and the Junior Grade Type Writing Certificate issued by the Department of Technical Education, Government
of Tamil Nadu and the permission given by the Directorate of Industries for manufacture and sale of aerated water, which would go to show that
the injured claimant had prospects of higher income. The reduction in income was not justified, when ample evidence have been produced to show
higher income. If a higher income is taken and even if the multiplier is reduced, the total compensation would stand justified. The compensation on
one or other head even if found excessive can be adjusted where meagre compensation has been given.
He further pleaded that no amount has been granted for attendant charges, when it has been clearly proved that all these years, the mother and
other relatives have been taking care of the young man. The claimant is under treatment for a long period of time. Even as on today, he has to be
under the care of a special attender, as his mobility is only by way of a wheel chair. His day-to-day essential activities have to be taken care of by
another person, which will entail cost. All these aspects have to be considered.
The injured claimant brought in a wheel chair was present before this Court and prima facie, this Court is able to observe as follows:
� At the time of accident, the claimant was a young man and was hale and healthy, as could be seen from the documentary evidence which
shows that he was actively engaged in various types of business. He had a licence to manufacture and sell aerated water. He holds a Diploma in
Mechanical Engineering Certificate, Junior Grade Certificate in typing and he had taken loan from the Government for business. He was paying
insurance policy. This will establish that the claimant was very active, enterprising and possessed the will to achieve and succeed in life.
� Today, this Court found that the injured claimant was almost a vegetable and his entire body muscles has become wasted. The limbs and
bones of the body were visible. He is unable to hold his head straight. He could not stand up as his condition is such. He was brought to the Court
in a wheel chair. He is disoriented. He is unable to speak even in monosyllables. He does not respond to call. This has been recorded by the
doctor, who assessed the disability long before and his health appears to be deteriorating day by day. It only establishes that the claimant''s
condition has not improved in spite of passage of time. The agony to the injured claimant and his family members continue to this day.
This Court finds that there is no improvement in the state of health of the claimant as on today that of the date of issuance of the disability
certificate, which is of the year 2002. It is, therefore, clear that for the past eight years, the health of the injured claimant has only deteriorated and
has not improved. The present state of health also requires to be considered to decide whether the quantum of compensation is just and
reasonable.
For such a long period of time, the mother, relatives or friends, as the case may be, have been taking care of the claimant. It is evident that the
claimant is in need of support by some person for the rest of his life and for that, he has to be compensated.
Insofar as the income of the injured claimant is concerned, this Court, after considering the documents, viz., Ex.P.16-Certificate issued by the
Department of Technical Education, Ex.P.15-Provisional Certificate issued by the State Board of Technical Education and Ex.P.1, the licence
given by the District Industries Centre for manufacture and sale of aerated water, is of the view that the injured claimant is not a person living an
easy going life. He was a very very active young man pursuing various avocation and trying to earn as much as possible. It establishes his
industrious nature and his ability to improve his life day-by-day, and that should have been considered by the Tribunal, while fixing the income.
There was no justification in fixing the income at Rs. 2,500/-, as even a coolie would have earned Rs. 3,000/- per month at that point of time. At
this juncture, it is useful to refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in B. Anandhi Vs. R. Latha and Another, (P. Sathasivam, J., as
he then was), wherein it has been observed that a coolie would earn Rs. 100/- per day. In that reported case, the accident happened in the year
1995, whereas the accident in this case happened in the year 1997. Therefore, considering the qualification acquired, nature of avocation
supported by the documents issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the income of the injured claimant can be accepted as claimed at Rs.
4,000/-.
Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, there is some force in the plea of the Appellant''s counsel that the multiplier as in the case of death need
not be adopted in the case of injury. However, considering the grievous nature of injuries and the consequence, rendering the claimant almost a
dead person, dependent on others, this Court is inclined to take the multiplier of ''13''. Accordingly, the loss of income comes to Rs. 6,24,000/-
(Rs. 4,000�12�13). The compensation for loss of amenities is justified, as the claimant has lost the ability to use his hands and legs and is
consigned to bed or wheel chair totally dependent on others. The compensation on this head can, however, be reduced as it is excessive. The
claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of happiness and discomfort due to the serious nature of injury and its consequence.
Since substantial amount has been granted for loss of income, consequent to the disability, separate compensation for disability at 100%
cannot be justified, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited v. Ahamed Thambi and Ors.
reported in 2006(3) LW 1025. The claimant will be entitled to compensation on other heads, which have been omitted. Accordingly, the award is
re-worked as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl. Head Amount Amount
No. awarded by the awarded by
Tribunal this Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 For loss of income Rs. 5,10,000/- Rs. 6,24,000/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 for loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For hardship, discomforts, Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
mental agony and loss of
3 happiness of life
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000/- -
4 at 100%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 for pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 for transport expenses Rs. 25,695/- Rs. 25,695/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 for extra-nourishment Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 for medical expenses Rs. 2,43,140/- Rs. 2,43,140/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9 For attendant charges -- Rs. 28,000/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Rs. 10,58,835/- Rs. 10,60,835/-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the amount re-worked by this Court is almost the same as what is awarded by the Tribunal, though on different, but inappropriate heads,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the total quantum of compensation awarded. Hence, the award of the Tribunal insofar as the quantum of
compensation is confirmed.
There is no dispute raised by the Appellant''s counsel on interest.
Finding no merits, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal.