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
28.12.2004 made in M.C.O.P. No. 1140/2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Trichy.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The injured-Veeraraghavan met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 24.03.1999 at about 12.p.m. He was travelling as a passenger in a
private bus belonging to the second respondent bearing registration No. TN.33.M.9199. The said bus was proceeding from Chennai to Trichi,
from south to north direction in the Chennai-Trichy National Highway. When the said bus was nearing G.S.T Road, the same was driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed and hit against a lorry which was coming from the opposite direction bearing
Registration No. TN.22.Y.6667. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. The claimant claimed a sum of
Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. The said bus 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 driver of the bus belonging to the second respondent?
Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation and if so, what is the amount and from whom?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum
from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Loss of income due to 30% disability Rs. 30,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/-
Mental shock and metal agony Rs. 15,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Mental shock for disfigurement Rs. 20,000/-
Extra nourishment and Transport charges Rs. 5,000/-
----------------
Total.... Rs. 1,00,000/-
----------------
Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company 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 has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering and another sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards mental
shock and mental agony. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental shock for disfigurement. The Tribunal ought not
to have awarded these amounts as they are related to the same heads. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law
and 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 for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the first respondent-claimant, P. Ws.1 and 2
were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Doctor Saravanan. Ex.P1 is the Ticket. Ex.P2 is the
First Information Report. Ex.P3 is the xerox copy of the Accident Register. Ex.P4 is the Admission Certificate issued by Surya Hospital, Chennai
to the appellant for taking treatment as inpatient. Ex.P5 is the Scan Report. Ex.P6 is the Discharge Summary given by Dr. Krishnamoorthy. Ex.P7
are the medical bills. Ex.P8 is the xerox copy of the pension book of the appellant. Ex.P9 is the Disability certificate. On behalf of the appellant-
Insurance Company no one was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. After considering the 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 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 injured was aged about 57 years. He was a Commercial Tax Officer. P.W.1, the claimant, in his evidence has
stated that only the driver of bus had caused the accident and the driver was also charge sheeted by the concerned police authorities. Further in his
evidence, it is stated that he sustained the following injuries:
A lacerated injury 2X1X1 cm on the upper lip-centre.
A lacerated injury 1X1X1 cm on the nose.
Immediately, after the accident, the claimant was admitted in the Dindivanam Government Hospital and later he took treatment in the Government
Hospital, Trichy and also at Chennai. P.W.2, the doctor, had examined the claimant and determined the disability at 30% and issued Ex.P.9
Disability certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of
income due to 30% disability. Normally the Courts award Rs. 1,000/- to 2000/- per percentage of disability. After taking into consideration of the
nature of the injuries and the evidence of the doctor, the Tribunal has correctly given Rs. 1,000/- per percentage of disability and awarded a sum
of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income due to 30% disability. I feel that the amount awarded towards this head is very reasonable and hence the
same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards mental
shock and mental agony and also Rs. 20,000/- towards mental shock for disfigurement. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance
Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded these amounts since they are relating to the same heads. After
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering as against a sum of
Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In view of awarding Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering, I feel that the amount of Rs. 15,000/-
awarded towards mental shock and mental agony and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- awarded towards mental shock for disfigurement are unwarranted
and hence the same are deleted. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P.7 is the series of medical bills.
It is an actual expenditure and also it is very reasonable. Hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards
extra nourishment and transport charges. After taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded under this
head is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest 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 awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and
hence the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:
Loss of income due to 30% disability Rs. 30,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Extra nourishment and
Transport charges Rs. 5,000/-
---------------
Total Rs. 75,000/-
---------------
Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs. 75,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition.
Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the entire award amount along with the accrued interest has already been
deposited by order of this Court dated 15.12.2005. Under these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation
of Rs. 75,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, less the amount if any already withdrawn, 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.