AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Appellant-State Transport Corporation against the award dated
13.02.2002 made in M.C.O.P. No. 87 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Court cum Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chengalpattu.
Not being satisfied with the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, the Respondent/claimant has filed the Cross Objection No. 169 of 2010
for enhancement of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-
Since the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection are filed against the same award, they are taken up together and disposed of by a
common Judgment.
The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 07.10.1995, the Petitioner was travelling in the Respondent''s State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN 33 N 483 from
Thiruppur to Chengalpattu. The driver of the bus had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationed lorry on the
G.S.T. Road, near Tindivanam. After the accident, the Petitioner was admitted at Government Hospital, Chengalpattu. Hence, the claimant has
filed the claim petition against the Respondent for compensation a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- with interest.
The Respondent has filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The Respondent denied the age, income, occupation, period of
treatment, nature of injuries and medical expenses. The Respondent further stated that the driver of the bus had driven the vehicle in a slow and
cautious manner. The vehicles are coming in the opposite direction with bright headlights, so, the Respondent bus had switched off the headlight of
the bus and had proceeded with dim lights due to the rain, the visibility was also poor. Further, the driver of the bus could able to see the stationed
lorry at close distance and he tried to avoid the accident by turning the bus to the right side, even though the left side of the bus slightly dashed
against the stationed lorry. As such, the negligence on the side of the stationed lorry. The Respondent further stated that the compensation is an
excessive one.
On the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issued for consideration, namely;
(i) Was the accident committed by the driver of the Respondent bus in a rash and negligent manner as alleged by the claimant?
(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation?
(iii) What is the quantum of compensation, the claimant is entitled to receive?
On the side of the claimant two witnesses were examined and 15 documents were marked. On the side of the Respondent no witness was
examined and no document was marked. The claimant''s marked documents are as follows:
First Information Report, Medical Records of the Chengalpattu Hospital, Medical records of the Chennai P.D.R. Orthopedic Hospital, disability
certificate, X-ray, general sales tax particulars of the claimant and other connected medical records and medical bills.
PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 07.10.1995, he had purchased textile goods at Thiruppoor and after the purchase, he had been
travelling in the Respondent''s bus bearing Registration No. TN 33 N 483. The driver had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the stationed lorry, which was parked on the G.S.T. Road, near Tindivanam, resulting that he had sustained multiple bone fracture
injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital at Chengalpattu for preliminary treatment, thereafter he had undergone treatment at
P.D.R. Hospital, Chennai - 17, wherein he was hospitalized for 13 days. He further stated that he sustained bone fracture injuries on his left thigh
and joint and right leg, chest and his face. In order to prove the accident, and mode of treatment he had marked medical records and FIR. He
further stated that he is doing textile business at Chengalpattu and in order to prove the same, he had marked general sales tax particulars. PW2
Doctor had examined the claimant and verified the medical records, he assessed the disability as 55%. He further stated that the claimant''s left leg
had been shortened by 3 cms., Due to the injury he is unable to walk, stand and squat for a long time.
On considering the evidences of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/- with interest at the rate of
9% per annum. The breakup compensation is as follows:
Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of earning capacity;
Rs. 1,00,000/- towards disability;
Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering;
Rs. 30,000/- towards future medical expenses;
Rs. 50,000/- against medical expenses;
Rs. 5,000/- for Nutrition;
Rs. 5,000/- for transport;
Rs. 5,000/- loss of income during treatment period.
Aggrieved by this award, the Appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the Respondent/claimant have filed Appeal and Cross Objection
respectively.
learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the loss of earning capacity a sum of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal which is not
pertinent, since the claimant''s avocation was not affected being a textile merchant. Further, Rs. 50,000/- had been awarded by the Tribunal under
the head of pain and suffering, which is also on the higher side.
Learned Counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries, for which he had undergone treatment for more
than 100 days as an inpatient at different private hospitals in Chennai. He had undergone surgical operation on his leg, due to the operation his left
leg had shortened by 3 cms., In the operated area a steel plate with screws was fixed, to remove the same, a operation is required. The claimant is
entitled to receive compensation under the head of attender charges. The compensation awarded under the heads of transport and nutrition each of
Rs. 5,000/- are also on the lower side.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels on either side and on perusing the award of the
Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the loss of earning capacity and towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.
50,000/- each which are on the higher side. Hence, a slight modification is required and as such, this Court awards the compensation as follows:
Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses;
Rs. 20,000/- against pain and suffering;
Rs. 5,000/- for nutrition;
Rs. 5,000/- for transport;
Rs. 5,000/- for loss of income during treatment period;
Rs. 10,000/- for attender charges;
Rs. 65,000/- towards permanent disability;
Rs. 40,000/- loss of amenities, discomfort and shortened leg for 3 cms.;
Rs. 25,000/- for future medical expenses
In total this Court awards a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of
payment of compensation, which is fair and equitable. Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs. 2,95,000/- to Rs. 2,25,000/-
as compensation.
On 01.09.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the Appellant/State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount
together with interest and cost to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 87 of 2000, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District
Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the compensation amount a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-
with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 87 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional
District Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, after filing necessary payment out of application, in accordance with law, subject to
deductions, if any made already. Likewise, the Appellant/State Transport Corporation is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount
with accrued interest thereon, after observing necessary formalities of the Tribunal.
Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, made in M.C.O.P. No. 87 of 2000, dated
13.02.2002 is modified. The cross appeal No. 169 of 2010 filed by the claimant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.