IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.763 OF 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Division-I, Villupuram .. Appellant/Respondent Versus V.Subramaniayan .. Respondent/Petitioner Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.245 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam. For Appellant : Mr.N.Anand For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / Transport Corporation against judgment and decree dated 08.09.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.245 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 09.06.2007, at about 19.30 hours, the petitioner was travelling on the Neyveli to Vridhachalam Main Road, when at that time, the respondent bus was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries including bone fracture. Hence, the claim petition has filed against the respondent for compensation, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The State Transport Corporation had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant including period of medical treatment, medical expenditure and disability. Actually, on 09.06.2007, the bus was proceeding on the Cuddalore to Vridhachalam Main Road, when at that time, a tyre cart proceeding towards Vridhachalam in a zigzag manner, noticing the same, the driver had applied brake and as a result the bus lead to hitting the tyre cart. In the result, two persons had sustained injuries not this petitioner, besides the claim amount is excessive. 4.On the plea of both the parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely; “i)Was the driver of the appellant Corporation responsible for the accident? ii)Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation, if so, what is the quantum of the compensation?” 5.On the side of the claimant, two witnesses had been examined, namely, PW1 / claimant and PW2 Dr.Rathinasabapathy and seven documents were marked namely, FIR, Motor Vehicle's Report, Wound certificate of the claimant, Discharge summary, Medical bills, Disability Certificate and X-ray. On the side of the appellant Transport Corporation, Thiru Soundar Rajan, driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and no document was marked. 6.PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 09.06.2007 around 07.30 p.m., he was proceeding on the mud road towards Vridhachalam when at that time, the respondent bus bearing Registration No.TN-32- N-1994 came in the same direction and hit him, as a result, he had sustained injuries on his head, right leg, left cheek, left hand and various bodily injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital Vridhachalam, thereafter, he had undergone treatment at Cuddalore and Ponicherry Hospitals. PW2 doctor had assessed the disability as 40%. The claimant had sustained brain injuries and blood was oozing from the head and as such his memory power has been impaired. RW1 had adduced evidence stating that when the bus was proceeding from Cuddalore to Vridhachalam, when at that time, a tyre cart was going in front of the bus without a danger light, noticing the same, the bus was immediately stationed, at that time, the cart had hit the bus. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.On considering the evidence of the witnesses the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,22,420/-, this compensation comprises of Rs.80,000/-, Rs.9,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.420/-, Rs.3,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- granted towards disability, loss of income during the medical treatment, pain and suffering, medical expenses, attender charges, nutrition and transport respectively. 8.Aggrieved by the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal to scale down the compensation. 9.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant had not sustained any injuries in the said accident, the same was narrated in the counter statement, but it was not considered by the Tribunal. The claimant had sustained simple injuries but the doctor had assessed the disability as 40% which is on the higher side besides the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head of 'pain and suffering' which is also on the higher side. 10.Learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had sustained head injuries which also affects the brain, blood was oozing from the head and there was a swelling on the injured area as such the claimant's nervous system has been affected and as a consequence the claimant's power is becoming impaired, so he is unable to do his usual job as a watchman. The Tribunal had not awarded adequate compensation under the heads of transport, nutrition, attender charges and loss of earning during the medical treatment period. 11.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant had sustained head injuries affecting his brain and the doctor assessed the disability as 40%, the age of the claimant is 32 years and he is a watchman, considering the heads of compensation namely, disability, transport, nutrition, attender charges, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of earning during the treatment and convalescent period and the loss of amenities, the quantum of compensation is not on the higher side, therefore, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the impugned award, hence, the award is confirmed which is fair and justifiable. 12.Therefore, this Court directs the appellant / State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.245 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order, subject to deductions, if any already deposited. After such a deposit being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.245 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam, after filing a Memo along with this order. 13.Resultantly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award dated 08.09.2009 made in M.A.C.T.O.P No.245 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar r n s To The Additional Subordinate Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vridhachalam. 1 cc To M/s.Anand, Advocate, SR.21234 C.M.A.NO.763 OF 2011 UG (CO) RH (20.7.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/