AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—This appeal is preferred by the Appellant-Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2005 made in M.C.O.P. No. 50 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The injured-Kandasamy met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 03.03.1999 at about 21.45 hours. The said injured was riding his Bullock-cart from Srivilluputtur to Ramakrishnapuram, Pudur. At that time, a bus, bearing Registration No. TN-59-N-0715, belonging to the AppellantTransport Corporation, came in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed and hit the bullock-cart. Due to the same, the injured was thrown away from the bullock-cart and sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body. The injured-claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. The Appellant-Transport Corporation, resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
Who is responsible for the accident?
Whether the Claimant is entitled to claim any compensation? If so, how much?
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 bus and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,69,700/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Heads Amount Loss due to 25% disability Rs. 1,12,500/-Loss of income Rs. 30,000/-Medical expenses Rs. 18,500/-Extra Nourishment Rs. 2,500/-Transport charges Rs. 500/-Damages to clothes Rs. 200/-Damages to cart Rs. 3,000/-Pain and suffering Rs. 2,500/-
Total Rs. 1,69,700/-
Aggrieved by that award, the Appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal and the Respondent-claimant has filed the Cross objection for enhancement.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and also without any basis and justification. Further, it is stated that the Tribunal, after awarding a sum of Rs. 1,12,500/- towards loss due to 25% disability, ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company has further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method in the case of injury. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and hence the same has to be set aside.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-claimant/cross objector 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.
Heard the counsel and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the Respondent-claimant, P. Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the Appellant- Transport Corporation one Esak was examined as R.W.1, who is the driver of the bus and one document was marked as Ex.R1, which is the certified copy of the judgment. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr. Ravichandran. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the Charge-Sheet. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the Accident Register. Ex.P4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report. Ex.P5 is the copy of the judgment. Ex.P6 is the Disability Certificate. Ex.P7 is the X-ray film. Ex.P8 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.P9 are the Medical bills. Ex.P10 is the Wound Certificate. 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 bus. The finding given by the Tribunal 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 42 years. He is an agriculture coolie and also maintaining a bullock-cart. He was earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month. P.W.1, the claimant, in his evidence, has stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the driver was also Charge-Sheeted by Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station in Crime No. 81/1999 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. Due to the accident, he sustained fracture on the left leg and also grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Srivilluputtur. Later he was admitted in R.S. Hospital at Rajapalayam from 07.03.1999 to 15.03.1999. PW.2, the doctor, examined the claimant and determined the disability at 45% and issued Ex.P-6 Disability Certificate. Ex.P7 is the X-ray film. In the evidence of the Doctor, he has stated that due to the fracture of left leg, the claimant is unable to do his work as before and also cannot stand and sit substantially. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has reduced the disability from 45% to 25%. Once the doctor assessed the disability, the Tribunal ought not to have reduced the same, and the disability assessed by the doctor only has to be taken into consideration. Further, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/- and determined the annual income at Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. 2,500X12). After taking into consideration of the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ''15'' and determined the loss of income due to 25% disability at Rs. 1,12,500/-(Rs. 30,000X15X25/100). Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method in the case of injury. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that only percentage method has to be adopted in the present case. Normally, the Courts award a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to 2,000/- per percentage of disability. In the present case, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per percentage of disability. If Rs. 2,000/- is awarded per percentage of disability, the loss of income due to 45% disability works out to Rs. 90,000/-(Rs. 2,000X45) as against Rs. 1,12,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Transport Corporation vehemently contended that once the Tribunal awarded a sum towards loss of income due to disability, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a further sum towards loss of income and also he relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ahmed Thambi and Others, in support of his contention. After considering the principles enunciated in the above judgment, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income. Therefore, the amount awarded under this head is unwarranted and hence the same is deleted. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,500/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P9 are the series of medical bills. There is no dispute that the claimant took treatment in the Government Hospital as well as in a private Hospital. It is an actual expenditure. The amount awarded under this head is also very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards extra nourishment, which is very low and meagre. Considering the fact that the claimant was in the hospital as in-patient for a period of 8 days, and also the nature of the injuries, certainly he would have taken nutritious and healthy food for speedy recovery. After taking into consideration of the same, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards extra nourishment as against Rs. 2,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- towards transport charges, which is very low and meagre. He took treatment in Srivilliputtur as well as in Rajapalayam. Therefore, certainly he would have incurred some expenditure, towards transport charges. After taking into consideration of the same, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards transport charges as against Rs. 500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 200/- towards damages to clothes, which is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards damages to cart. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-claimant has submitted that even though there is no evidence available on record to show that the bullock- cart was completely damaged, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards this head is very low and the same has to be enhanced. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages to cart as against Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards pain and suffering, which is very low and meagre. After taking into consideration of the nature of injuries and the evidence of the doctor, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering as against Rs. 2,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of income during the treatment period. He was in the hospital as in-patient for a period of 8 days and also after discharge from the hospital he has taken rest. After taking into consideration of the same, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 7,500/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of amenities and attendant charges. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to award a consolidated sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of amenities and attendant charges. The Tribunal has fixed the interest rate at 7.5% 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 at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:
Heads Amount Loss due 45% disability Rs. 90,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 18,500/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Transport charges Rs. 5,000/- Damages to clothes Rs. 200/- damages to cart Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Loss of income during the treatment period Rs. 7,500/- Loss of amenities and attendant charges Rs. 5,000/- Total... Rs. 1,51,200/-
Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs. 1,51,200/- with interest at7.5% p.a from the date of petition.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Transport Corporation has submitted that 50% of the award amount along with accrued interest has already been deposited by order of this Court dated 05.06.2007 and the claimant was also permitted to withdraw the 50% of the award amount. Under the circumstances, the Appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs. 1,51,200/- with interest at 7.5; p.a from the date of petition, less the amount already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs. 1,51,200/- with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition, less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application.
With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. Consequently, the Cross Obj.(MD). No. 2 of 2010 is also closed. No costs.