IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 06 / 07 /2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.952 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, (viilupuram Division – II) rep. by its Managing Director, (2nd respondent was impleaded as per order in M.P.No.350 of 2004 dated 22.09.2004) ... Appellant/Respondent Versus 1.S.Gayathri(minor rep.by her father & Natural Guardian V.Suresh Kumar) ...Ist Respondent/Petitioner 2.Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2. ... 2nd Respondents/Ist Respondent (given up in lower Court) Prayer: The above appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2010 and made in M.C.O.P.No.2911 of 2002, on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh For Respondents: Mr.N.Sundaram (R-1) J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.2911 of 2002, on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 04.06.2002, at around 2.15 p.m., the petitioner was travelling on the motorcycle bearing Registration NO.TN22-H-2057 from Tambaram to Chennai. At that point of time, the respondent's bus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bearing Regsitration No.TN21-N-4085, coming from the same direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the father of the petitioner has filed the claim petition against the respondents for compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest. The petitioner, being a minor, hence the father has filed the claim petition in the capacity of natural guardian. 3.The respondent / State Transport corporation has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent had denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant. Actually, the rider of the motorcycle had committed the accident due to her reckless riding. As such, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 4.On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration, namely; “(i)Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN21-N-0485? (ii)Whether the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation? (iii)Whether the petitioner in O.P.NO.2911 of 2002 is entitled for the compensation? If so what is the quantum?” 5.In the said accident, two claimants had filed for compensation i.e., rider and pillion rider respectively. Therefore, the learned Tribunal decided the two cases after collecting common evidence and passed common judgment and separate decrees to the respective parties. For this O.P., the following relevant documents were marked:- Discharge Medical summary i.e., Exs.P1 to P5, Photos with negative, First Information Report, X-ray, Disability Certificate etc. On the side of the respondents, one Sachidanandamwas examined as RW1.On behalf of the injured person, her father Suresh Kumar had been examined as PW1. PW2, the eyewitness had also adduced evidence. PW2, had adduced evidence stating that on 04.06.2002, at about 2.15 p.m., when he was riding the motorcycle along with a pillion rider, i.e., the claimant from Tambaram to Chennai, at that time the respondent's bus driven by its driver in a rash manner, coming in the same direction, had hit the motorcycle. PW1 further adduced evidence that the claimant is his daughter aged about 9 years and she was studying in class IV. The injured was admitted at Ramachandra Hospital, Porur. Further, she had undergone treatment at Government Hospital, Royapettah and at V.M.K.Hospital, Erode. She had sustained bone fracture of left femur. PW3, the doctor had examined the claimant and assessed the disability at 40%. PW1, further adduced https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidence that the claimant had undergone a surgical operation and steel plate was fixed in the operated area. Her left leg joint movement had been restricted. 6.On considering the evidence of witnesses and perusal of exhibits which were marked by the claimant, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded a sum of RS.1,03,545/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 7.Aggrieved by the said award, the State Transport Corporation Limited has filed the above appeal. 8.The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the doctor's assessment of disability at 40% is on the higher side as the claimant had sustained simple injuries. Further, the Tribunal's award a sum of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards disability and pain and suffering are on the higher side. 9.The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant was aged about 9 years and she is a brilliant student. After the accident her concentration in her studies had been reduced. She is unable to participate in sports and games. The Tribunal had not considered compensation under the head of attender charges, which is absolutely necessary since the claimant is a female aged about 9 years. 10.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal's award of a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain and suffering is on the higher side. Hence, this Court reduces the compensation granted this head to Rs.15,000/-. The awards granted under other heads of compensation are reasonable. Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs.1,03,545/- to Rs.93,545/-, which is fair and justifiable. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment compensation. 11.On 19.04.2011, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited to deposit the entire compensation amount together with interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2911 of 2002, on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the modified compensation as mentioned above with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2911 of 2002, on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai, after filing a Memo along with this order, subject to the claimant becoming a major. Likewise, the appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2911 of 2002, on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai, after observing necessary formalities of the Court below. 12.Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.2911 of 2002, dated 21.07.2010 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai 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 The VI Small Causes Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chennai. 1 cc to Mr.V.Ramesh , Advocate, Sr.No.38877 C.M.A.No.952 of 2011 rsi(co) pmk.8.8.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/