United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Ramamurthy and Sankar

C.S. Karnan, J.—The above appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Insurance Company, against the award and decree dated 30.04.2004

made in M.C.O.P. No. 472 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Villupuram.

The short facts of the case are as follows:

On 12.04.2001, the Petitioner had driven the bus from Madras to Villupuram on the G.S.T. Road and at about 11 o'' clock, a lorry bearing

Registration No. TN-20-Y-7005, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and

dashed against the bus. As a result of this collision, the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was taken to Government Hospital,

Tindivanam, for preliminary treatment. Thereafter, he had undergone treatment at Vijaya Hospital, Chennai. Hence the Claim Petition had been

filed against the Respondent for compensation of a sum of Rs. 12 Lakhs with interest. The second Respondent / United India Insurance Company

had filed a counter statement and resisted the Claim Petition. The Respondent denied that the driver of the lorry had committed the accident in a

rash and negligent manner. The Respondent further stated that in the said accident both vehicles had been involved. As such he had stated that

there was also contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus. The Respondent also denies

the age, income and occupation of the Petitioner and has stated that the claim is excessive.

On pleading of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration, viz.,:

Whether the driver of the vehicle TN-20-Y-7005 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the accident?

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed by him?

To what other reliefs the Petitioner is entitled?

On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and sixteen documents were marked. On the side of the Respondents no one was

examined and no document was marked. P.W.1-Ramamoorthy is the claimant. P.W.2 -Dr. K. Ravindar. P.W.3 - Dr. Senthilkumar. Ex.A1 is the

xerox copy of the FIR dated 13.04.2001, in Cr. No. 148/2001 of Rosanni Police Station. Ex.A.2 is the Wound certificate dated 22.05.2001,

issued to the Petitioner by Government Hospital, Tindivanam. Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are the Discharge summary dated 02.06.2001,

29.09.2001 and 06.12.2001 issued by Vijaya Health Centre to the Petitioner respectively. Ex.A6 is the xerox copy of the insurance policy, dated

10.05.2000 (Lorry). Ex.A7 is the Salary chit of the Petitioner for the month of March, 2001 issued by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,

Villupuram. Ex.A8 is the certified copy of judgment dated 25.06.2001, made in C.C. No. 129/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,

Tindivanam. Ex.A9, Ex.A10 and Ex.A11 are the series of medical bills (115 series nos, 132 Nos. and Rs. 5995/-respectively). Ex.A12 is the

certified copy of Motor vehicle Inspector''s Report dated 13.04.2001 (lorry). Ex.A13 is the permanent disability certificate dated 23.12.2000,

issued to the Petitioner by Dr. K. Ravindar. Ex.A14 is the xerox copy of the identity card dated 05.04.2004, for the physically handicapped issued

to the Petitioner. Ex.A15 is the permanent disability certificate dated 27.03.2004, issued to the Petitioner by Dr. Senthil Kumar. Ex.A16 is the X-

rays (26 nos). P.W.1 stated that the F.I.R. was registered against the driver of the offending lorry and that he was punished by the learned Judicial

Magistrate. In order to prove the same, F.I.R. and a copy of the judgment were marked. P.W1 further stated that he had sustained injuries on his

right thigh, a cut injury on the forehead and fracture an right thigh. He further stated that, he had initially undergone treatment at Government

Hospital, Tindivanam and subsequently had undergone treatment at Vijaya Health Centre. P.W.2, Doctor, had examined the claimant, after taking

X-ray and had assessed the disability as 55%. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.

7,65,000/-as compensation.

Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant has filed the above present appeal.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that the Tribunal had awarded compensation, by adopting multiplier method and had

awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,58,644/-under the head of disability, which is not pertinent.

The learned Counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant is a driver attached to the State Transport Corporation and after sustaining bone

fracture injuries on his thigh, he is unable to perform his normal duty as a driver. Therefore, he argued that the multiplier method will apply. The

learned Counsel also argued that the loss of income, during the period of medical treatment had not been awarded.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel on either side and on

perusing the award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was no discussion that the claimant''s employment as driver in

the State Transport Corporation was affected. Therefore, the multiplier method adopted in this case is not appropriate. Hence this Court modifies

the award as follows:

Rs.1,10,000/- towards disability;

Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering;

Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges;

Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges;

Rs.10,000/- towards nutritious food;

Rs.3,30,352/- (Rs. 2,78,525/-+ Rs. 45,842/-+ Rs. 5,985/-)

towards medical expenses;

Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period and

convalescent period ;

Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of earning capacity; and

Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of comfort and other amenities.

Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs. 7,65,000/-to Rs. 6,60,352/-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. No particulars are available on the file of this

Court regarding the payment of compensation by the Appellant. Under the circumstances, this Court hereby directs the Appellant to pay the entire

compensation, with accrued interest thereon, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such deposit, it is open to the

claimant to withdraw the compensation, as fixed by this Court, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 472 of 2001, on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Villupuram, after filing necessary payment out application in

accordance with law. Subject to deductions, if any, made already.

In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree dated 30.04.2004, made in

M.C.O.P. No. 472 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Villupuram, is modified.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.