IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3673 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kancheepuram. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Sivagami, 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Vellore. (second respondent is given up) ... Respondents/Petitioner and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 21.4.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.5066 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District, Fast Track Court No.III), Chennai. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kancheepuram has filed the appeal challenging the award dated 21.4.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.5066 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District, Fast Track Court No.III), Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 12.10.2002 at 8.45 p.m. near the Perumuchu Railway Gate, Arakonam Police Station limit. The injured claimant/first respondent, a 40 years old lady, an agriculturist, was travelling as a passenger in the appellant transport corporation bus. While nearing the Perumuchy Railway Gate the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden break and hit an object. In that process the claimant was thrown out of the bus. In that accident the claimant suffered head injury, fracture of right leg and other injuries all over the body. She was initially treated at Government Hospital Arakonam and thereafter, she was taken to Government General Hospital, Chennai where surgical procedures were done and the fracture was reduced by operation. Metal screws were fixed on the neck of the right femur. The injured claimant filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- stating that she was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing agricultural work. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.N.Saichandran was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs.P-1 to P-5 were filed, the details of which, as mentioned in the award, are as follows:- Exs.P-1 and P-3 are the accident register copies, Ex.P-2 is the discharge summary, Ex.P-4 is the disability certificate and Ex.P-5 is the X-Ray. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of appellant, the second respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal based on the pleading of the injured claimant that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus, held as such. This is supported by the fact that the driver of the bus himself accepted that the accident occurred at Kadambanallur Perumuchu village railway gate. The plea of no negligence on the part of the driver of the transport corporation does not arise in this case. Appellant cannot deny their liability. In fact even in the counter- affidavit, before the Tribunal, the appellant transport corporation has accepted the accident. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to raise such a plea at this point of time. 5. As far as the compensation is concerned, the issue was decided in paragraph 8 of the award in answer to point No.2. Exs.P- 1 and P-3 are the accident register copies. There is a fracture of the right femur neck and surgical procedures were done in the Government General Hospital, Chennai. The disability has been assessed at 40% under Ex.P-4. Taking note of the fact that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ injured claimant is an agriculturist-cum-collie and that she was also engaged as house maid, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5%:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Pecuniary Loss:- 1 For loss of income (4 months Rs.1,500/- x 4) Rs. 6,000/- 2 Transport to hospital Rs. 3,000/- 3 Extra nourishment Rs. 3,000/- Non-pecuniary loss:- 4 Pain and sufferings Rs. 15,000/- 5 Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- 6 Disability assessed at 40% Rs. 75,000/- Total Rs.1,12,000/- 6. As far as the compensation is concerned, the contention of the appellant's counsel is that though the disability has been assessed at 40%, the sum of Rs.75,000/- granted is on the higher side. Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 7. On going through the award, this court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened in the year 2002. The lady claimant suffered grievous injuries and was treated first at Arakonam Hospital and then at Government General Hospital, Chennai for some time. Surgical procedures were done and metal screws were fixed. Therefore, the claimant who is an agriculturist-cum-coolie and also working as a house maid, will great difficulty in working as before. (ii) Due to the injury and fracture suffered by the claimant her earning capacity will be is affected to some extent. The Tribunal relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., -v.- Ahmed Thambi reported in 2006(4)C.T.C. 433 granted the compensation. Considering the nature of injuries a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been granted towards loss of amenities, as the injuries are grievous in nature and the injured claimant is a lady, and a coolie by profession. (iii) Assuming that the sum of Rs.75,000/- granted towards 40% disability is marginally higher, the fact remains that for the pain and sufferings undergone by the 40 years old injured lady, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the sum of Rs.15,000/- granted towards pain and suffering is meagre. For transport to hospital and extra nourishment meagre amount has been granted. No amount has been granted for attender charges. The loss of income for the period of four months is also only Rs.6,000/-. The claimant has not pleaded for medical expenses or future medical expenses, as it may include physiotherapy. (iv) Considering all these aspects, the quantum of compensation for the grievous injuries sustained and the disability assessed at 40% appears to be just and reasonable as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2002 and the award was passed in the year 2008. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ts To 1.Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chennai. 1 cc to Mrs.B. Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR. 66353 C.M.A.No.3673 of 2008 SGL(CO) kk 23/12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/