IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 2.3.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.488 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, (Salem Division-II), Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri-5. ... Appellant/1st Respondent vs. 1.V.Selvaraj, 2.K.Renukadevi, 3.National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Branch office, Anuradha Complex, III Floor, Bangalore Road, Krishnagiri Town. ... Respondents/Petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 1.7.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1244 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Krishnagiri. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 1.7.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1244 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Krishnagiri. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 25.11.2003. The injured claimant V.Selvaraj, aged 43 years, was travelling in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant transport corporation bus. At that time, KAKC bus belonging to the second respondent was coming in the opposite direction. Due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers, both the buses collided with each other. In that accident many passengers who travelled in both the buses sustained injuries. As per the award of the Tribunal, the claimant suffered the following injuries:- "1. Lacerated wound 1 cm in front of right leg deformity, pain, tenderness present over right leg and knee movements restricted. X-ray : Fracture right tibia condyle. 2. Swelling pain tenderness over left ankle and foot. X-ray fracture left cancaneum. Fracture of 2nd and 3rd metatarsal bones of left foot." He was first treated at the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, thereafter, at St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, where he was treated as inpatient from 25.11.2003 to 2.1.2004 and underwent operation for the fracture of right leg and illizarov external fixator applied. Thereafter, he was treated as outpatient for two months. Then as inpatient from 9.3.2004 to 12.3.2004 and removed illizarov external fixator and bone marrow injunction was given and FCB applied. Thereafter he was treated at Dharmapuri privately as well as St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. He was working as the Deputy Inspector in Local Fund Advertisement Department, Dharmapuri and was earning a sum of Rs.11,700/- per month at the time of accident. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injury suffered in the accident. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.S.S.Ravikumar, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-14 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.P-1 is the attested photocopy of FIR, dated 25.11.2003, Ex.P-2 is the wound certificate issued by St.John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, dated 8.2.2004, Exs.P-3 and P-4 are the attested photocopies of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Reports dated 25.11.2003, Ex.P-5 is the salary certificate of the injured claimant dated 7.1.2007, Ex.P-6 is the discharge summary for the period from 25.11.2003 to 2.1.2004, Ex.P-7 is the discharge summary for the period from 9.3.2004 to 12.3.2004, Ex.P-8 is the discharge summary for the period from 27.8.2004 to 3.9.2004, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.P-9 is the discharge summary of Nathan Pvt. Hospital Salem for the period from 29.5.2007 to 9.6.2007, Ex.P-10 is the referred O.P. Sheet by Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, Ex.P-11 is the photos and negatives, Ex.P-12 series are the medical bills, Ex.P-13 is the disability certificate dated 31.12.2007, Ex.P-14 is the X-ray. On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the first respondent before the Tribunal, Mr.Munivel, the driver of the KAKC bus was examined as R.W.1. The driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.2. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 4. The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence on record and also considering the fact that F.I.R. was registered only against the appellant transport corporation bus, came to the conclusion that the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus and was responsible for the accident, in which the claimant suffered grievous injuries as above and consequently, liability to compensate the injured claimant was fixed on the appellant transport corporation. Such finding of the Tribunal is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. 5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal based on the oral evidence of the claimant and that of the doctor supported by medical records issued by the various hospitals in which, the claimant had taken treatment, the period of hospitalisation and the disability assessed at 50%, granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 9% per annum:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income during the period of treatment for three months Rs. 30,000/- 2 Disability assessed at 50% Rs. 50,000/- 3 Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- 4 Medical bills as per Exs.P-9 and P-12 Rs. 3,55,225/- 5 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- 6 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 4,65,225/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the disability assessed at 50% is higher. Further, the compensation granted towards medical expenses is excessive. She also pleaded that the rate of interest granted at 9% is higher. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. 7. On going through the award of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation on the above said contentions for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 25.11.2003. The injured claimant was 43 years old at the time of accident. He was working as Deputy Inspector in Local Fund Advertisement Department. (ii) From the records, it is clear that the injured claimant was first treated at Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, thereafter, at St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, where he was treated as inpatient from 25.11.2003 to 2.1.2004 and underwent operation for the fracture of right leg and illizarov external fixator applied. Thereafter he was treated as outpatient for two months. Then as inpatient from 9.3.2004 to 12.3.2004 and when illizarov external fixator was removed and bone marrow injunction and FCB applied. Thereafter he was treated at Dharmapuri privately as well as St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. The compensation granted towards pain and suffering, transport expenses and extra nourishment expenses for the above stated injury and treatment are very meagre. No amount has been granted towards attender charges. (iii) The disability at 50% has been assessed by the doctor under Ex.P-13, disability certificate. No document was produced on behalf of the appellant transport corporation that the disability assessed by the doctor is high. For the disability assessed at 50% a sum of Rs.50,000/- is granted, which is reasonable. (iv) Based on Exs.P-9 and P-12 series, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.3,55,225/- towards medical expenses. With regard to medical expenses the Tribunal discussed it in para 16 of the award. The amounts paid as advance amount were deducted by the Tribunal. According to Ex.P-12 series, a sum of Rs.5,37,839.40 was claimed. From the said amount, the Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs.1,85,391.00 paid as advance amount and granted only a sum of Rs.3,52,448.40. It is also stated that along with Ex.P-9 discharge summary, some medical bills for Rs.2,776.10 have been filed. In total, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.3,55,225/- alone which cannot be disputed as it is based on verification of records. Appellant is not able to show the error in calculation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) Even though the appellant contended that the interest granted at 9% in this case is excessive, no ground is raised in the grounds of appeal. (vi) The facts that no amount granted towards attender charges and lesser amount granted towards transport expenses, extra nourishment and pain and suffering, will compensate the higher interest granted in this case. (vii) Considering the above aspects and the long period of hospitalization, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.4,65,225/- by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 9%. 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 permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To The Principal District Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Krishnagiri. 1 cc To Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.7280 C.M.A.No.488 of 2009 PA(CO) SRA(9/03/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/