AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—The appeal is preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and Decree made in
M.C.O.P. No. 13 of 2001 dated 24.07.2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial
Magistrate), Karur
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The injured Arthanareeswaran met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 02.11.1999 at about 9.15 p.m. He was a passenger in a bus
bearing Registration No. TN.47. D.3523 belonging to the second Respondent. The said bus was proceeding in the Karur to Vellore Main Road
and the same was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed. When the bus reached near Noyyal Vaikkal Canal,
the driver of the bus suddenly applied the brake and as a result of the same, the injured was thrown out of the bus and sustained head injury i.e.,
fracture of right temporal region. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 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 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. 1,29,400/- with interest at 9% per annum
from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Loss of income due to 40% disability Rs. 50,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
Head injury Rs. 50,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 4,400/
---------------
Total... Rs. 1,29,400/
---------------
Aggrieved by that award, the Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company 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 is wrong in awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards
head injury, when it has already awarded a sum of of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss due to 40% disability. Therefore, the award 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 counsel on either side 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 P16 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Doctor Elangovan. Ex.P1 is the First Information
Report. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch. Ex.P4 is the Motor Vehicles Inspector''s Report. Ex.P5 is the charge sheet.
Ex.P6 is the copy of the judgment. Ex.P7 is the medical receipts. Ex.P8 is the Hospital receipts. Ex.P9 is the Transport receipts. Ex.P10 is the
Insurance Policy Act. Ex.P11 is the driving license of the bus driver. Ex.P12 is the disability certificate. Ex.P13 is the C.T. scan. Ex.P14 is the scan
report. Ex.P15 is the brain map. Ex.P16 is the Analysis report. On the side 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 47 years. He was a costing master at Selvam Tex, Karur and he was earning a sum of
Rs. 3,000/- 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 charged sheeted by Vangal Police Station in Crime No. 477 of 1999. Immediately, after the accident,
the claimant was admitted in the Government Hospital, Karur and on the same day he was taken to the Government Hospital, Trichy. Later he was
admitted in the Sea Horse Hospital, Royal Road, Tiruchirappalli. P.W.2, the doctor, had examined the claimant and determined the disability at
40% and issued Ex.P12 Disability certificate. In the evidence of the Doctor, he has stated that 40% disability, affects the regular activities of the
claimant and therefore, the claimant cannot do his work as before. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of income due to 40% disability. Normally the Courts award Rs. 1,000/- to 2000/- per percentage
of disability. In this case, there is no dispute that the claimant sustained head injury. Therefore, it is reasonable to award Rs. 1,500/- per percentage
of disability. If Rs. 1,500/- is awarded, the loss of income due to 40% disability is works out to Rs. 60,000/-(1,500�40) as against Rs. 50,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards head injuries. As rightly argued by the learned Counsel
appearing for the Appellant-Transport Corporation, once the Tribunal has awarded an amount towards loss due to disability, the Tribunal ought
not to have awarded a sum towards head injury. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 50,000/-awarded towards head injury is unwarranted and hence the
same is deleted. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration of the nature of
injuries stated above and also the evidence available on record this Court is of the view that it is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,400/- towards medical bills. Exs.P7 and P8 are the series of medical bills. It is an actual expenditure and
hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income during the treatment period. There is no dispute
that the claimant was admitted in various hospitals and took treatment for a period of one week as inpatient and after discharge, he is unable to do
his work as before. After taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income during the
treatment period. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per annum. The date of accident is 02.11.1999. Considering 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 40% disability Rs. 60,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 4,400/-
Loss of income during the
treatment period Rs. 10,000/
-------------
Total Rs. 99,400/
-------------
It is 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 submitted that the entire award amount along with the accrued interest of Rs. 1,85,291
has already been deposited by order of this Court dated 12.08.2002 and the claimant was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of
the deposited amount. under these circumstances, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest
at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, less the amount 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.