IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3493 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kancheepuram. ... Appellant/ Respondent vs. Devan. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 3.7.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.419 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), Chengalpattu. For appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh ----- JUDGMENT The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 3.7.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.419 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), Chengalpattu. 2. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, who caused the accident and the liability of the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. 3. The only contention raised by the appellant's counsel in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this appeal is on the quantum of compensation. 4. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 27.2.2006. The injured claimant Devan, aged 47 years, was travelling as a passenger in the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation, driven by its driver. Due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus and due to lack of caution by the conductor, the claimant in this case suffered grievous injuries while getting down from the bus. He was treated at Stanley Government Hospital from 27.2.2001 to 5.7.2006, nearly four months. In the hospital metal rods were fixed. However, in spite of treatment, it is the evidence of the doctor that the bones were mal united and the claimant had difficulty in walking. He claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.6 lakhs stating that he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. 5. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Doctor Thiyagarajan was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-9 were filed, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of FIR dated 27.2.2006, Ex.P-2 is the certified copy of section alteration report, Ex.P-3 is the certified copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P-4 is the discharge summary dated 27.2.2006, Ex.P-5 series are the medical bills, Ex.P-6 series are the photos with negatives, Ex.P-7 series are the photos with negatives showing the present position of claimant's leg, Ex.P-8 series are the photos with negatives and Ex.P-9 is the disability certificate dated 1.11.2006. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal decided the issue relating to compensation in the following manner. Ex.P-4 is the discharge summary. Ex.P-5 series are the medical bills. Exs.P-6 and P-8 are photos to show the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant. P.W.2 doctor, who examined the claimant on 1.11.2006 spoke about the nature of medical procedure done to his left leg which suffered grievous injuries. He also stated that metal rods and plates were fixed externally. The fractured bones were mal united and the claimant suffered fibrosis of muscles and there is no movement in left ankle and left foot. According to the doctor, the claimant has difficulty in walking on the road. He cannot walk without help or support. It is also the evidence of the doctor that there is no flexion in ankle region. He assessed the disability at 70%. Considering the age of the injured and the nature of injuries, the disability assessed and the period of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ treatment taken, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5%:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 For injuries Rs. 50,000/- 2 Medical treatment expenses Rs. 5,000/- 3 Transport and other expenses Rs. 10,000/- 4 Future medical treatment Rs. 25,000/- 5 Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs.1,40,000/- 7. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the Tribunal without any discussion has granted huge amounts for injury as well as for pain and suffering and also for future medical treatment. Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 8. On going through the details of the injury suffered, the long period of treatment for about four months taken at Stanley Government Hospital, the age of the injured claimant and his occupation as a potter, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. Accepting the contention of the appellant that the compensation on one or other head is excessive, the total compensation can be justified in the following manner:- (i) The disability in this case has been assessed at 70%. However, the Tribunal has not taken that into consideration and granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards injuries. The said amount of Rs.50,000/- can be adjusted towards disability. (ii) For pain and suffering, considering the four months period of hospitalisation and the fact that plates and rods were fixed externally and removed thereafter will justify the sum of Rs.50,000/- granted for pain and suffering. (iii) In this case the injured claimant is aged 47 years and a potter by occupation. Therefore, he has to depend upon his physical well being for earning. The pain and suffering will continue for the rest of his life. Therefore, the amount of Rs.50,000/- granted for pain and suffering is justified. (iv) The nature of injury suffered by the claimant does not stop with the treatment given for four months. The claimant has to undergo physiotherapy and treatment for pain and discomfort for further period for most part of his life. He has to expend for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ treatment by way of physiotherapy. Suitable compensation has to be granted on this head. Otherwise, the injured claimant will become totally immobile. Therefore, the sum of Rs.25,000/- granted for future medical expenses can be justified. (v) Even assuming that total compensation is marginally higher, the fact that no amount has been granted for loss of income during period of treatment and no amount has been granted for attender charges, the total compensation granted at Rs.1,40,000/- is just and reasonable and does not require further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2006 and the award was passed in the year 2007. 9. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1.Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chengalpattu. +1cc to Mr.V.Ramesh, Advocate Sr 63914 CK (CO) km/24.12. C.M.A.No.3493 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/