AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and decree
dated 15.02.2006 made in M.C.O.P. No. 87 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court,
Cuddalore.
The background facts in a nutshell, are, as follows:
A. Ramesh, the claimant, met with a motor vehicle accident that took place on 29.10.2004 at about 04.30 p.m. The claimant, at the time of
accident, was riding his bicycle near Kannarapettai Main Road, at that time, the bus bearing Registration No. TN-31 D-3636, belonging to the
second Respondent herein, came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and also high speed and hit the claimant''s bicycle. Due to
the same, the claimant sustained fracture and multiple grievous injuries. Immediately, he was given first aid at Cuddalore Abirami Hospital and
Cuddalore Government Hospital. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The said bus was insured with the
Appellant-Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
a) On whose negligence the accident had occurred?
b) At the time of the accident, whether the bus was insured with the Appellant-Insurance company? Had the driver of the bus possessed a valid
driving licence or not?
c) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so, how much?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the bus and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,78,790/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realisation. The details of the compensation are as under:
Permanent disability Rs. 3,67,200/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-
Transport charges Rs. 1,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs. 590/-
Total... Rs. 3,78,790/-
Aggrieved by that award, the Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal wrong in holding that the driver of the bus caused
the accident. It is also submitted that the award of the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that the Tribunal is
wrong in adopting the multiplier method in the case of injury and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and
the same has to be set aside.
Learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence
on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in
accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.
Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record. On the side of the claimant, witnesses P.W.1 and
P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 were marked. On the side the of the Respondents, neither a documentary evidence was
marked nor a witness was examined. P.W.1 is the claimant/first Respondent herein. P.W.2 is Dr. Raju. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of First
Information Report. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of Insurance policy. Ex.P3 is the xerox copy of R.C. book. Ex.P4 is the xerox copy of driving
licence. Ex.P5 is the xerox copy of route permit. Ex.P6 is the xerox copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector''s report. Ex.P7 is the xerox copy of
accident register. Ex.P8 is the xerox copy of the discharge summary. Ex.P9 are the doctor''s prescriptions. Ex.P10 is the Medical bills (Rs. 592/-).
Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 are the salary certificates. Ex.P13 is the claimant''s identity card. Ex.P14 is the disability certificate. Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 are
the X-rays. Considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the finding given by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence and hence the same
is confirmed.
The claimant was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident. He was working as Manager as part-time at Praveen Travels and Field
Officer at M/s. Sri Lakshmi Security Services and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Ex.P11 and Ex.P.12 are the salary certificates of the
claimant. The claimant (P.W.1) deposed in his evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus.
Immediately he was given first aid at Cuddalore Abirami Hospital and Cuddalore Government Hospital. Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 would show that the
claimant taken treatment in Hospital. P.W.2 -Doctor, who examined the claimant, in his evidence has stated that he sustained grievous injury all
over the body. He determined the disability at 45%. Ex.P14 is disability certificate and Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 are the X - Rays. Further, it is stated
that due to the multiple injuries all over the body, he is unable to lift any articles. Even though it is contended that the claimant was earning Rs.
5,000/- at the time of accident, the Tribunal determined the monthly income at Rs. 4,000/- and 45% permanent disability affects the monthly
income of the claimant and the loss of monthly income works out to Rs. 1,800/- loss due to 45% permanent disability (Rs. 4,000/- x 45%) and the
annual loss of income comes to Rs. 21,600/-(Rs. 1,800 x 12) due to loss of 45% permanent disability. In the case of injury, the Tribunal has
adopted the multiplier method and awarded a compensation towards loss of income. In this case, after taking into consideration the nature of
injuries suffered and also the claimant is unable to do any work, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier ''17'' and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.
3,67,200/- (Rs. 21,600/- x 17). The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal
ought not to have adopted multiplier method in the case of injury. Further, no concrete evidence available to show that 45; permanent disability
affects the 100% earning capacity of the claimant. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company relied upon a judgment in
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, .
After considering the principles enunciated in the judgment cited supra, let me consider the facts of the present case. The Tribunal wrong in
awarding compensation on the basis of multiplier method due to lack of evidence and record. Normally, the Courts award Rs. 1,000/- to Rs.
2,000/- per percentage of disability. Hence, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to
award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of permanent disability, as against Rs. 3,67,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering. The amount awarded under this head is very low, it would be reasonable to award a
sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering as against Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/-
under the head of extra nourishment. The amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- under the head of transport expenses. The amount awarded under this head is very low and it would be reasonable
to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as against Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 590/- towards medical
expenses. Hence the amount awarded under this head is very low and it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 7,500/- as against Rs. 590/-
awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the heads of loss of amenities, attendant charges and loss of income
during the treatment period. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 7,500/-, Rs.
5,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- under the heads of loss of amenities, attendant charges and loss of income during the treatment period respectively. The
Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The accident has occurred on 29.10.2004. Considering the prevailing rate of interest
on that date, I feel that it is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation, as per the above discussion are
as under:
Permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-
Transport charges Rs. 5,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs. 7,500/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 7,500/-
Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of income
(during the treatment) Rs. 5,000/-
Total... Rs. 1,60,000/-
Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition.
It is represented by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company that the entire award amount has already been
deposited, as per order of this Court, dated 06.03.2008. He further submitted that the claimant was already permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- with accrued interest, as per order of this Court dated 17.09.2009. In these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the
modified award amount of Rs. 1,60,000/with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, already
withdrawn, on making proper application. The Appellant-Insurance company is permitted to withdraw the balance amount, on making proper
application.
With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.