IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 5.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3356 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.R.Mohan alias Mohan Rajkumar, 2.S.Ramalingam (second respondent is given up in the appeal) ... Respondents/Petitioner and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 11.4.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.155 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Udumalaipettai. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 11.4.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.155 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Udumalaipettai. 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 17.7.2005. The injured claimant Mohan alias Mohankumar, aged 30 years, a business man, was driving a motorcycle. The two wheeler was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, the claimant suffered fracture of the left leg tibia. He was treated at Prabu Hospital, Pollachi from 17.7.2005 to 25.7.2005. He claimed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation stating that he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of accident as a business man. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Doctor Shanmughasundaram was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-11 were filed, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR, Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate, Ex.A-3 is the disability certificate, Ex.A-4 series are recommendation receipts, Ex.A-5 series are the medical bills, Ex.A-6 series are the medical remarks, Ex.A-7 series are the medical bills, Ex.A-8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report, Ex.A-9 is the appellant's driver's driving licence, Ex.A-10 series are the photos and Ex.A-11 is the claimant's driving licence. The driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of appellant transport corporation, the second respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, who caused the accident and the liability of the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the appellant's counsel in this appeal is on the quantum of compensation. 6. The Tribunal decided the issue relating to compensation from paragraphs 11 onwards in answer to point No.2. The nature of injury suffered by the claimant and the treatment given to him is not in dispute. The disability has been assessed at 20% under Ex.A-3. The medical bills were filed under Exs.A-5 and A-7 and that is not disputed. The income was not proved by evidence, however, the Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income. Considering the nature of injury suffered, period of treatment taken, the disability assessed, the age, occupation, etc., the Tribunal awarded the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5%:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Disability assessed at 20% Rs. 25,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- 3 Loss of income Rs. 15,000/- 4 Transport and extra nourishment expenses Rs. 5,000/- 5 Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.1,00,000/- 7. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that though the disability has been assessed at 20%, a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been granted towards disability and without any proof the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income. Hence, the compensation amount has to be reduced. 8. This court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal by way of reduction for the following reasons:- (i) The accident was happened on 17.7.2005. The injured claimant in this case at the time of accident is a 30 years old businessman. He suffered fracture of the left leg tibia and was treated in private hospital and the disability assessed at 20% is not in dispute. Therefore, the injured claimant is entitled to reasonable compensation. The sum of Rs.25,000/- granted for the disability assessed at 20% is just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive. (ii) The injured claimant was in hospital from 17.7.2005 to 25.7.2005 as inpatient. For extra nourishment and transport to hospital, a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- alone was granted. For pain and suffering a paltry sum of Rs.5,000/- alone was granted. The sum of Rs.50,000/- granted for medical expenses is as per records. No amount has been granted for attender charges. Even if the loss of income granted by the Tribunal is on the higher side, it can be adjusted on other heads as above. (iii) Considering all these aspects, this Court is unable to find any good reason to reduce the quantum of compensation as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and the award was passed in the year 2007. 9.Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. There will be no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Subordinate Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Udumalaipettai. 1 CC To Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR NO.61666 C.M.A.No.3356 of 2008 rjm(co) pmk/2.12.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/