IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.320 OF 2007 M.P.No.1 of 2009 Kothandaraman @ Kothandan ... Appellant/ Claimant Versus The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri. ... Respondents/ Respondent Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 18.10.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District. For Appellant : Mr.V.Parivallal For Respondent : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / Kothandaraman against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 24.02.2004, at about 1.40 a.m., the petitioner was travelling in the respondent Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN29-N-1565 from Bangalore to Avakandampalli, when at that time the driver had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road-side bridge, as a result, the petitioner and others had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim petition for compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest. 3.The respondent had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied the accident that the driver https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the bus had committed the said accident. Actually, the driver had driven the bus from Banaglore to Villupuram, when the bus was nearing Samalapuram Junction Road, when at that time, a motorcycle came in the opposite direction without headlight, hence the driver turned the bus on his left side, as a result, the vehicle dashed against the boundary wall, as a result, the accident took place. Age, income and occupation of the claimant are denied besides the claim amount is excessive. 4.On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration, namely; “(i)Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the bus driver bearing Registration No.TN29-N-1565? (ii)Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation? (iii)To what relief?” 5.On the side of the claimant two witnesses had been examined and eleven documents were marked, which are as follows:- First Information Report, Motor vehicle Inspector's Report, Wound Certificate, Discharge Summary, X-rays, Medical Reports, Medical Bills, Driving Licence and Disability Certificate etc., On the side of the respondent one witness was examined and no document was marked. 6.PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 24.12.2004 at 1.40 a.m., near Kamalapuram Murugan Temple on Krishnagiri to Thiruvannamalai Road, was travelling in bus bearing Registration No.TN29-N-1565, at that time, the driver had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, as a result, the bus hit the wall of the bridge and it capsized. Due to the impact, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. The case has been registered, copy of the FIR is Ex.P1. PW1 sustained fracture of the bones below his knee on the left leg. Motor vehicle Inspector's report in respect of the bus is Ex.P2. PW1 was treated at Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, copy of the wound certificate is Ex.P3. Subsequently, he was treated at Santhosh Hospital Bangalore as inpatient from 24.12.2004 to 03.01.2005, Discharge Summary is Ex.P4, X-rays are Ex.P5. 7.RW1 had adduced evidence that the driver drove the bus from Bangalore to Vizupuram, near Kamalapuram Road Junction near Murugan Temple, in the opposite direction TVS-50 came without headlight to avoid hitting the above TVS-50, the bus was taken on the left side, the bus hit the parapet wall. Hence, there was no negligence on his part. RW1 admits the accident and one passenger gave complaint. On considering the evidence of PW1, Exs.P1 to P5 and the admissions of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RW1, the Tribunal found that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the bus driver. 8.On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.49,773/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as compensation. 9.Not being satisfied with the award, the claimant has filed the above appeal. 10.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant had sustained 50% disability and he had a bone fracture on his left leg. After the accident, he is unable to perform his normal duty as an auto driver. At the time of the accident, his age was 21 years, he was hospitalized for more than 10 days as an inpatient. Thereafter, he had undergone treatment as an outpatient for a lengthy period. The Tribunal had not considered compensation under the heads of nutrition, transport and attender charges. 11.Learned counsel for the State Transport Corporation argued that the claimant had sustained simple injury, but the Doctor assessed the disability as 50%, which is an erroneous view. Further, the Tribunal had awarded compensation in full towards medical expenses, besides the Tribunal had awarded Rs.9,000/- for loss of income during the medical treatment period, which is on the higher side. So, this amount will be treated for including transport and nutrition. 12.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant had sustained 50% disability as per the doctor's evidence and he sustained bone fracture. Medical expenses alone is more than Rs.22,000/-, therefore, the balance compensation is inadequate. Hence, this Court grants the compensation on the following manner:- Rs.50,000/- towards disability; Rs.22,263/- for medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges; Rs.3,000/- against nutrition; Rs.3,000/- for attender charges; Rs.10,000/- for loss of income during the medical treatment period Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering; In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.1,08,263/- together with interest. After deducting the original compensation a sum of Rs.49,773/- this Court awards a sum of Rs.58,490/- and this amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which is fair and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ equitable. Therefore, this Court directs the State Transport Corporation to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such compliance being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the modified compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District, after filing a Memo along with this order. 13.Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of Sub-Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District made in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2005, dated 18.10.2006 is modified. 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 1. The Sub-Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gudiyatham, Vellore District. 2. The Section Officer VR Section,High Court, Madras 2 ccs to Mr.V. Parivallal, Advocate, Sr. 22874 1 cc to Mr.B. Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, Sr. 23053 C.M.A.NO.320 OF 2007 JSV (CO) pmk.7.7.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/