IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.12. 2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.4102 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Division-II,Rangapuram Vellore. .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. A.Gopal .. Respondent/Petitioner . . . Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 15.11.2007 made in M.C.O.P No.488 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court) Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District. For Appellant : Mrs.Vijayalakshmi For respondent : .... J U D G M E N T The State Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 15.11.2007 made in M.C.O.P No.488 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court) Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District. 2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 28.04.2002. The injured claimant Gopal, aged 42 years, a milk vendor cum agricultrual labourer along with his friends was travelling on a TVS Suzuki when he was hit by the Appellant Transport https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. He suffered fracture of right leg knee and lacerated injuries on his right thigh and he was taken to Cheyyar Government Hospital. Thereafter he took treatment in the Government General Hospital at Chennai. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- stating that his income was Rs.3,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1 and documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10. Ex.P.1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the Accident Register. Ex.P.3 is the discharge summary. Ex.p.4 is the out patient chit. Ex.P.5 is the bill for payment for physiotherapy. Ex.p.6 is the medical bills. Ex.P.7 is the X ray. Ex.P.8 is the bill for taking X.ray. Ex.P.9 is the bill for sending the milk to Kancheepuram Hutson Company. Ex.P.10 is the disability Certificate. The driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. But, no documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation Bus, who was responsible for the accident and the injury caused to the claimant and the liability fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimant, is not seriously disputed. Accordingly, the said finding is confirmed. 5.The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. The issue relating to the compensation was decided in answer to point No.2. by the Tribunal. The income of the injured claimant an agricultural labour cum mason was taken as Rs.150/- per day by the Tribunal. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the Accident register showing the nature of injuries to the right thigh and fracture of right knee and other injuries all over the body. It is stated that the injured claimant was in the Chennai Government General hospital for 3 days. The Doctor, who was examined as P.W.2, on the basis of medical records and X ray, stated that there was fracture of the right knee, and in Ex.P.10, Disability Certificate, he opined that the disability is 20%. Considering all these factors, the age, income and occupation of the injured claimant, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest. Sl.No . Award Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 For disability of 40% Rs. 20,0000/- 2. For one grievous injury Rs. 10, 000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No . Award Amount granted by the Tribunal 3 Pain and Suffering and extra nourishment Rs 5 ,000 /- 4 Loss of amenities, & depression and shock Rs. 5,000/- 5 Transport expenses Rs. 2,000/- 6 Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- 7 Loss of income during treatment Rs. 3, 000/- Total Rs. 50,000/- 6. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that a sum of Rs.10,000/- granted for the injuries suffered by the claimant and Rs.5,000/- for loss of amenities granted by the Tribunal, cannot be justified as he is adequately compensated for disability and pain and suffering and therefore, the award has to be reduced. 7. This Court is not inclined to accept the plea for reduction of the quantum for the following reasons: The accident in this case happened in the year 2002 and the injured claimant is 42 years old, milk vendor cum agricultural labourer by occupation. He would be out of employment for certain period due to the injuries and treatment. No amount has been granted for attendant charges. Meagre amount has been granted for pain and suffering and extra nourishment and transport expenses. Hence, the sum of Rs.10,000/- granted for grievous injuries, can be adjusted towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.5,000/- granted for depression and loss of amenities can be adjusted towards the attendant charges etc. Even if there is excess amount, it can be adjusted towards transport expenses and the like. Hence, the total compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction or modification. So also, the interest at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2002 and the award was passed in the year 2007. 8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Consequently, connected https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ miscellaneous petition is closed. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the entire amount and is granted. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar PAL To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar. 1 CC To Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR NO.72527 CMA No. 4102 of 2008 bv(co) pmk/11.2.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/