AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—This appeal is preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated
06.01.2003 made in M.C.O.P. No. 192 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Additional
Subordinate Judge), Nagercoil.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The injured-Shankar met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 31.01.2000 at about 4.00 p.m. The said injured was traveling in his M.80
two-wheeler, bearing Registration No. TN-74-D-7710 from East to West direction from Thovalai to Nagercoil. When he was nearing
Viswasapuram Lutheran Mission Church, a lorry bearing Registration No. KRT-1893, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent
manner and also at high speed and hit the M.80. Due to the same, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. The claimant claimed a
sum of Rs. 2,08,900/-as compensation. The said lorry was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings,
the Tribunal framed the following issues:
Whether the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry or not?
Whether the claimant is entitled to claim any compensation and who is liable to pay the compensation?
To what other reliefs 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. 1,54,148/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The details of the
compensation are as under:
Heads Amount
Injuries Rs. 11,000/-
Loss due to 15% disability Rs. 90,720/-
Medical expenses Rs. 26,000/-
Loss of income during the
treatment period Rs. 19,600/-
---------------
Total... Rs. 1,47,320/-
---------------
The totaling of the award amount comes to Rs. 1,47,320/-, but the Tribunal by mistake has awarded sum of Rs. 1,54,148/-. It is a totaling error.
Therefore, the actual award amount is Rs. 1,47,320/-with interest at 9; p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by that award, the Appellant-
Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company has questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
and vehemently contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and also without any basis and justification. Further,
he contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs. 11,000/-towards injuries and 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.
In spite of notice served on the Respondents and their names were also printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the
Respondents.
Heard the counsel and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the first Respondent-claimant, P. Ws.1 to 3 were examined and
documents exs. P1 to P16 were marked. On the side of the Appellant-Insurance Company no one was examined and no document was marked
to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr. Ramaguru. Ex. P1 and P2 are the Medical Bills. Ex. P3 is the Medical Report. Ex.
P4 is the Medical Bill. Ex. P5 is the First Information Report. Ex. P6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report. Ex. P7 is the Sketch. Ex. P8 is the
Wound Certificate. Ex. P9 is the Observation Mahazar. Ex. P10 is the xerox copy of the judgment in S.T.C. No. 1873/2000. exs. P11 and P.12
are the Discharge Cards. Ex. P13 is the Driving License. Ex. P14 is the Transfer Certificate. Ex. P15 is the Salary Certificate. Ex. P16 is the
Disability 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 lorry. The finding of 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 27 years. He is working as a Representative-cum-Salesman in Thanusu Plastic
Industries in Thovalai. He was earning a sum of Rs. 2,800/-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 lorry and the driver was also charge-sheeted by Aralvoimozhy Police
Station in Crime No. 96 of 2000 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. Due to the accident, he sustained the following injuries:
Lacerated injury medical aspect of right foot 15X5 cm muscle deep extensive contamination by mud with fracture medical cunie farm bone.
Lacerated wound 3X1X1 cm over right chin.
Lacerated wound 1X1/2X1/2 cm over right little finger.
Abrasion over right shoulder 1X1 cm.
Abrasion over right arm 2X4 cm.
Abrasion over right forearm.
Haematoma over right writ register.
PW.2, the doctor, examined the claimant and determined the disability at 15% and issued Ex. P16 Disability Certificate. In the evidence of the
Doctor, he has stated that due to the above said injuries, the claimant cannot drive any vehicle and also cannot walk and sit substantially. After
considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that for the purpose of computing the loss of income, multiplier
method has to be adopted. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 2,800/-and determined the annual income at Rs.
33,600/-(Rs. 2,800X12). After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ''18'' and determined the
loss of income at Rs. 6,04,800/-(Rs. 33,600X18). After taking into consideration of the disability at 15%, the Tribunal determined the loss of
income at Rs. 90,720/-(Rs. 6,04,800X15/100). Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company vehemently contended that the
Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method in the case of injury, and there is no evidence available on record to prove that 15%
disability affects the earning capacity of the injured. Further he stated that in the absence of such evidence it is a well settled principle that the
correct method that should be adopted is only percentage method. Therefore, taking taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the view that it is reasonable to adopt percentage method. Normally, the Courts award 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 15% disability works out to Rs. 30,000/-(Rs. 2,000X15). Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified
compensation of Rs. 30,000/-towards loss of income due to 15% disability as against Rs. 90,720/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs. 11,000/-towards injuries. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company vehemently contended that
after awarding a sum towards loss due to disability, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum towards injuries. After taking into consideration
of the same, I am of the view that the amount awarded towards injuries at Rs. 11,000/-is unwarranted and hence the same is deleted. The Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs. 26,000/-towards medical expenses. exs. P1, P2 and P4 are the series of medical bills. The injured was in the hospital as
in-patient from 31.01.2000 to 31.02.2000 and later he took treatment as out patient. After taking into consideration of the same, I am of the view
that, the Tribunal has correctly awarded a sum of Rs. 26,000/-towards medical expenses, which is very reasonable and hence the same is
confirmed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the injured at Rs. 2,800/-. There is no dispute that he has taken treatment for a period of
seven months as in-patient and also as out-patient. Therefore, during the treatment period, certainly he would have lost his income. Therefore, the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,600/-(Rs. 2,800X7 months) towards loss of income during the treatment period. The amount awarded
under this head is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards transport charges. After
considering the facts and circumstances of case, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards transport charges. The Tribunal has
not awarded any sum towards extra nourishment. He was in the hospital for a period of seven months. Hence, 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. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards attendant charges and loss of amenities. After considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/-each towards attendant charges and loss of amenities. The
Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration of the nature of injuries stated above, it would be
reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards pain and suffering. 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 at 9% p.a.
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 of due 15% disability Rs. 30,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 26,000/-
Loss of income during the
treatment period Rs. 19,600/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/-
Transport charges Rs. 5,000/-
Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-
----------------
Total... Rs. 1,00,600/-
----------------
(Rounded off to Rs. 1,00,000/-)
Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that 50% of the award amount has already been deposited by order of
this Court dated 10.11.2003 and the claimant was also permitted to withdraw the 50% of the award amount along with the accrued interest.
Under the circumstances, the Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-with interest at 9;
p.a. from the date of petition, less the amount already deposited with a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount from the deposit on making proper application. The Appellant-Insurance
Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application.
With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.