IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29 .03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.M.A. No.64 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.233 of 2006 The State Express Transport Corporation (TN-Dn.II) Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director, No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002. ... Appellant/ Respondent V. E.Ramasamy ... Respondent/ Petitioner Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgment and decree made in MACTOP No.787 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2) , Salem dated 14.10.2004. For Appellant :Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy For Respondent :No Appearance J U D G M E N T The Appellant/Transport Corporation has projected this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court as against the Award dated 14.10.2004 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.787 of 2001 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II) Salem in awarding a total compensation of Rs.3,84,500/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit, etc., 2. The Tribunal viz., the Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court-II, Salem on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence especially with reference to the evidence of P.W.1/claimant to the effect that on 08.03.2001 at about 06.30 a.m., when he was coming on the left extreme of the road returning in a cycle after supplying the milk to Kuppur Milk Society, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appellant/Transport Corporation's bus bearing No.TN07 N 9404 driven by its driver R.W.1 Santhanam in a fast speed and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against his cycle as a result of which the accident had occurred as evidenced by Ex.P1 the First Information Report and he sustained injuries as per Ex.P2, Wound Certificate. R.W.1 Driver Santhanam in his evidence deposed that on 10.03.2001, he took the bus bearing No.TN07 N 9404 belonging to the Appellant/Transport Corporation and was proceeding to Bangalore and next to Omalur, before his bus one van was proceeding and he drove his bus slowly at a distance of 10 meter behind the van and at that time, one elderly person swerved his cycle on the right side and hence he turned his bus on the right side in order to avoid dashing against him and stopped his bus on the middle of the road and the cyclist without coming any signal suddenly came across the road and therefore the cyclist was responsible for the happening of the occurrence and that the First Information Report was lodged against him. Though R.W.1 bus driver had stated in his evidence that the elderly cyclist (respondent/claimant) was responsible for the happening of occurrence, the Tribunal had not accepted his unilateral, self serving evidence in regard to the happening of occurrence. A perusal of Ex.P1 F.I.R. indicates that as against R.W.1, a criminal case was registered by Omalur police, Salem District in F.I.R.No.289/01 under Section 279, 337 I.P.C. The evidence of the respondent/claimant as P.W.1 was quite cogent and convincing in regard to the happening of occurrence. This Court rejects the interested testimony of R.W.1 Driver. Therefore, by placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P.1. F.I.R. and bearing in mind the important fact that the respondent/claimant had suffered injuries as per Ex.P2 the Wound Certificate, this Court is in complete agreement in regard to the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal as to the manner of the happening of occurrence and accordingly, it is held that R.W.1 Driver of the bus involved in the accident was responsible for causing the accident. As such, this Court is in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in arriving at a conclusion that R.W.1 Santhanam, the driver of the Appellant Transport Corporation's bus was responsible for the happening of the occurrence. 3. The respondent/claimant in the claim petition had restricted his claim of compensation to an accident of Rs.7 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the accident took place on 08.03.2001. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the respondent/claimant, witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side on the appellant/Transport Corporation, witness R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. In the claim petition, the respondent/claimant in paragraph 21 made the following claims:- Amount of compensation claimed : Rs.7,00,000/- (a) Particulars of loss and expenses: (a) Loss of earnings (432 Month X Rs.5000 p.m) : Rs.7,20,000/- (b) Partial Loss of earning : Rs. 10,000/- (c) Transport to Hospital : Rs. 1,000/- (d) Extra Nourishment : Rs. 50,000/- (e) Damages to clothing and articles : Rs. 1,500/- (f) Others Medical expenses : Rs.2,15,000/- PART II (g) Compensation for pain and suffering and mental agony : Rs.4,00,000/- (h) Compensation for continuing, permanent disability : Rs.2,00,000/- (i) Compensation for the loss of earning power : Rs.3,00,000/- TOTAL : Rs.18,97,500/- ============= However the petitioner restricted his claim to Rs. 7,00,000/- ============= 6. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant/Transport Corporation, the Tribunal was in error in awarding an exorbitant compensation of Rs.3,84,500/- for the fracture of 5 Ribs and loss of spleen and as a matter of fact, the Tribunal should have rejected the assessment of disability by the witness P.W.2 Dr.Muthusamy and P.W.3 M.Ramasamy since the disability percentage arrived at by them were in quite disproportionate to the nature of the injuries sustained by the respondent/claimant and also that the Tribunal is not justified in awarding a total compensation of Rs.3,84,500/- together with interest at 9% per annum, etc., 7. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the evidence of P.W.1/claimant to the effect that the front tyre of the bus ran on his stomach and got down and as a result of which he suffered injury on his chest, hip fracture and he was taken in the same bus and admitted into the Omalur Government Hospital. From there, he was taken to Bharath Private hospital at Salem where he took treatment as inpatient for two months and that he had undergone surgery in his stomach. His spleen was removed and his urinary passage was torned and he was performed with surgical operation and he was fitted with tube. Further, he spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards Medical Expenses and that he met his medical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ expenses by availing a loan by informing that he would sell his forest land. 8. P.W.2 Dr.Muthusamy in his evidence had stated that he had not treated the respondent/claimant but examined the respondent/claimant on 17.02.2004 and that the respondent/claimant had sustained 40% permanent disability as per Ex.P8, Wound Certificate furnished by him and also that the respondent/claimant could not do his work. 9. It is the further evidence of P.W.2 Dr.Muthusamy that the respondent/claimant while shocking experiences the respiratory suffocation and that on his left chest his 2 to 6 ribs were broken and long on the right hand side was injured and since he complained of breathlessness, he was performed with a surgery and there were scars on his left side chest and throat and know about the operation he had undergone. 10. It is the evidence of P.W.3 Dr.M.Ramasamy that the respondent/claimant was examined by him on 17.02.2004 and the respondent/claimant presently was not in a position to take his food freely since he find some difficulty his fatigue was in high proportion and further not in a position to sit and stand and he had assessed his permanent disability at 30% as per Ex.P10 Certificate issued by him. 11. It transpired from the evidence of Doctors P.Ws.2 and 3, the respondent/claimant had suffered a permanent disability of 40%+30% and in all, he sustained a permanent disability of 70%, is evidenced by Ex.P8 and P10 Disability Certificate. For 1% disability, this Court opines that a fair and equitable compensation of Rs.2,000/- could be awarded. In the present case on hand, the respondent/claimant had suffered a total permanent disability of 70% as referred to above and therefore, for the 70% permanent disability, this Court determines the compensation payable to the respondent/claimant as 1,40,000/- (Rs.2,000X70=1,40,000). 12. As per Ex.P4, Medical Bills, the respondent/claimant had claimed a sum of Rs.2,14,523/- and in this regard, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,14,500/- and accordingly this Court grants the same. Towards Pain and Suffering, Transportation charges, treatment and loss of income, the tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent/claimant and since this was a reasonable and fair amount, this Court grants the same. 13. It is the important duty of a Court of Law/Tribunal to award as perfect an amount as was within its ambit. The determination of compensation for the personal injuries sustained https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the respondent/claimant is an Herculean task of a Tribunal/Court of Law. Yet a Court of Law/Tribunal is duty bound to award a legitimate, reasonable fair and just compensation to renew a physical frame that was battered and shattered. 14. However, it is to be borne in mind that no mathematical precision can be arrived at in determining what is the exact amount of compensation to be awarded to the respondent/Claimant in a given case. Indeed, the Award of compensation in respect of the injury/fatal case depends upon the given set of facts and circumstances of each case. Certain amount of conjectures or surmises are possible to be taken into consideration by a Court of Law/a Tribunal in determining the compensation. 15. Be that as it may, even though the respondent/claimant in his claim petition had restricted his claim of Rs.7 lakhs as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident that took place on 08.03.2001, on a careful consideration of overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in a cumulative fashion, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the Tribunal viz., the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Salem had not committed any material error or patent illegality while awarding a compensation of Rs.3,84,500/- together with interest at 9% per annum to the respondent/claimant payable by the Appellant/Transport Corporation. The said award does not require any interference at this stage of the appeal. Resultantly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails. 16. This Court in C.M.P.No.233 of 2006 dated 19.01.2006 has passed an order of interim stay subject to the appellant/petitioner depositing the entire compensation awarded with accrued interest to the credit of MACT O.P.No.787/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2) Salem within 8 weeks from the receipt of that order, failing which the interim stay granted automatically vacated. Further, a direction has been issued that on such deposit being made, the respondent/claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the share amount with proportionate accrued interest and the balance amount was ordered to be invested in fixed deposit for a period of one year and the same shall be renewed periodically pending further orders and also that the interest accruing from the said deposit was ordered to be paid to the respondent/claimant once in three months pending further orders. As a logical corollary, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance compensation amount payable to him along with accrued interest, etc., by projecting necessary payment out application before the Tribunal, viz., as per Civil Rules of Practice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award dated 14.10.2004 passed by the Tribunal viz., the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.2, Salem in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.787 of 2001 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this appeal. Bearing in mind all the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. vri To 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal The Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.2, Salem. 2. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Madras C.M.A.No.64 of 2006 KA (CO) kk 12/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/