IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 22.02.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.107 of 2006 & C.M.P.No.359 of 2006 Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited Pallavan Salai Chennai – 600 002 ... Appellant/Respondent Versus M.Seetha (Minor) Rep. by their father and next friend V.Mani ... Respondent/Petitioner Prayer:- This appeal is preferred against the Award and Decree dated 15.12.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.4083 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, III Judge, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.K. Nagarajan For Respondent : Mr. V.M. Ravichandran J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, against the award and decree dated 15.12.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.4083 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, III Judge, Chennai. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 02.09.1998, at around 15.30 hours, the petitioner was standing at the bus stop in front of 'Adayar Anandha Bhavan' and at that point of time, the respondent's Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-1620, the driver had driven the vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the Claim Petition had been field against the respondent for a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs with interest. The respondent Transport Corporation had filed a counter statement and resisted the Claim Petition. The respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant. Actually, on 02.09.1998, at around 14.55 hours, the respondent Transport Corporation bus was proceeding from Parrys to Thiruvanmiyur. When the bus was stopped at Adayar O.T. bus stop, for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ facilitating the passengers to board and alight, the petitioner suddenly had run towards the bus and tried to board the bus. In the result, she had fallen down. Further, the respondent stated that the claim amount is an excessive one. 3. On pleading of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration, viz.,:- “ 1. Who was responsible for the accident? 2. Who is liable to pay compensation? 3. If the claimant is entitled to receive compensation, what is the quantum of compensation?” 4. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined viz., father of the claimant, eyewitness and doctor. The claimant marked the following documents, viz., Medical discharge summary, doctor's report, medical bills series, hospital receipts, hospital discharge certificates, photos with negative, First Information report, Sketch, disability certificate and X-ray. On the side of the respondent, two witnesses were examined, viz., the conductor and driver respectively. 5. P.W.1, had adduced evidence that, on 02.09.1998, at around 03.30 p.m., the respondent bus dashed against his daughter on the L.B. Road bus stop. In the result, his daughter had sustained bone fracture injuries on her left leg. Immediately, she had been admitted at Government General Hospital, Chennai. In order to prove the accident, he had marked F.I.R. and Sketch, R.W.1 stated that on the date of accident, when he was boarding the passengers in the bus, the minor girl attempted to board the bus and fell down on the floor. R.W.2, stated that after hearing the whistle of the conductor, he had moved the bus. The minor petitioner had invited the accident. P.W.1, further adduced evidence stating that at the time of accident, his daughter was studying in the II standard. After the accident, the minor petitioner had undergone treatment at Government General Hospital, Chennai, from 02.09.1998 to 17.10.1998 and again from 30.01.1999 to 17.03.1999. In order to prove the same, he had marked exhibits. Exs.P2, P4 and P3 are the medical records and expenses. P.W.3, the doctor, had stated that the claimant had sustained grievous bone fracture injuries on her left thigh and also injury below her knee. The muscles of the injured portion of her leg has shrunk. The doctor assessed her disability as 50%. On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,99,400/- with interest at the rate of 9%. 6. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed the above present appeal. 7. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards medicine, Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.50,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ towards loss of marriage prospects and these are all on the higher side. 8. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant left leg has totally been damaged and has become thin. The left leg has become very grotesque. As such, the marriage prospects has been lost. This injury is of a permanent nature and cannot be cured. Due to the injuries, the claimant feels discomfort in her movements. To prove the above, the learned counsel has submitted photographs of the claimant. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant's left leg below her knee has been totally damaged. The appearance of her leg is grotesque and as such this Court is of the view that her marriage prospects has been lowered. The injuries are of a permanent nature and the claimant feels uncomfortable in all her movements. Considering the age, eduction, duration of treatment, nature of injuries and attendant charges, this Court finds the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal to be fair and equitable. Therefore, this Court confirms the Tribunal order. This Court imposed a condition on 25.01.2007, the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs with proportionate accrued interest. Now this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation of a sum of Rs.99,400/- with accrued interest thereon, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 10. It is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.4083 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law, subject to withdrawals if any. 11. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree dated 15.12.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.4083 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Small Causes Court Judge), chennai, is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There is no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ smn To 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Court of Small Causes, III Judge, Chennai. 2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.Um.Ravichandran, Advocate, SR.13418. C.M.A.NO.107 OF 2006 PUR(CO) RVL 01.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/