IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.887 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011 M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd., No.372, Old No.231, T.T.K.Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 18. ... Appellant/Respondent II Versus 1.A.Daniel 2.D.Jayachandran ... Respondents/Petitioner & 1st Respondent Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.553 of 2006, dated 30.10.2009, on the file of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court – II Judge, Chennai. For Appellant : M/s.J.Chandran For Respondents : M/s.A.A.Venkatesan (R-1) J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / New India Assurance Company Limited against the award and decree dated 30.10.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.553 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 15.09.2005 at about 05.30 a.m., the petitioner along with others had travelled in a mini-bus from Sivagangai to Chennai, when the vehicle was nearing Maduranthagam, when at that time, the driver of the bus had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and tried to overtake the ongoing vehicle, as a result, the mini-bus dashed against the stationed lorry, as a result, the petitioner and others had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner had filed the claim petition against the respondent for compensation a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and denied the accident. The vehicle had no insurance policy, further the vehicle was also not in possession of valid records. The driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. The respondent denied the said accident and also denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant, besides the claim amount is excessive. 4.On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration, namely; “(i)Whether the driver of the first respondent is responsible for the accident? (ii)Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner? (iii)What is the quantum of compensation that the petitioner is entitled to?” 5.In the said accident, three claim petitions had been filed by three respective parties. This appeal is arising from O.P.No.553 of 2006, therefore, the necessary evidence and documentary evidence is mentioned below: PW3 claimant and PW4 doctor had been examined, the below mentioned documents were marked: FIR, Discharge Medical Summary, X-ray, Disability Certificate. 6.PW1 had adduced evidence stating that her husband and others were travelling in the first respondent's mini-bus on 15.09.2005 at around 5.30 a.m., on the G.S.T.Road, when the bus was nearing Maduranthagam, when at that time the driver took the bus on the wrong side and tried to overtake the ongoing vehicle, as a result, the bus dashed against the stationed lorry. The claimant had adduced evidence that he had sustained grievous injury in the said accident, at the time of the accident he was a coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month. The doctor had assessed the disability as 30%. 7.On considering the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.73,000/- with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum. 8.Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 9.The learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that as per the evidence of the claimant and documentary evidence, the claimant had sustained simple injuries, but the doctor had assessed the disability as 30%, which is on the higher side, rate of interest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9.5% per annum is also on the higher side. 10.Learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant is a coolie aged about 35 years and after the accident he is unable to perform the normal work as a coolie. The doctor assessed the disability as 30% as such the claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.60,000/- under this head. Therefore, the compensation amount is not on the higher side. 11.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no medical evidence that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for 20% disability. This Court modified the same and awards a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head, the rest of the compensation on the other heads are confirmed. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.63,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 12.Hence, this Court directs the appellant / Insurance Company to comply with this order within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this order. After such compliance being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, as fixed by this Court, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.553 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai, after filing a Memo along with this order. 13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai made in M.C.O.P.No.553 of 2006, dated 30.10.2009 is modified. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar r n s https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai. 2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. C.M.A.NO.887 OF 2011 MRD {CO} TP/15.7.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/