IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.2.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.246 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Vellore. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Murali, 2.P.Chainnathambi, (R2 given up). ... Respondent/Petitioner and 1st respondent. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 6.12.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Sub Court), Arni. For appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 6.12.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Arni. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 23.12.2000. The injured claimant Murali, aged 18 years as per the order of the Tribunal said to be working in a cement shop, was travelling on a motor cycle. The said vehicle was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident the said Murali suffered several injuries. It is stated that he was treated at Polur Government Hospital and thereafter at Vellore Government Hospital and subsequently at C.M.C. Hospital at Vellore. He filed claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injury suffered in the accident. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Kartheegan, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A- 1 to A-6 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the wound certificate, Ex.A-2 is the copy of F.I.R. Ex.A-3 series are the medical bills (19 in number), Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of order in MCOP No.88 of 2001, Ex.A-5 is the wound certificate and Ex.A-6 is the X.Ray On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant. 4. As far as the negligence is concerned, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the two wheeler. The Tribunal came to the conclusion based on the oral and documentary evidence and the F.I.R., that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation. The evidence of the conductor was rejected as he stated in his cross-examination that he did not witness the accident because he was issuing tickets at the time of accident. The departmental enquiry report relating to nature of accident is not marked. Considering the above facts, the negligence was fixed on the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and there is no material to controvert the same in this appeal. 5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal based on the oral evidence of the injured claimant came to conclusion that the claimant suffered two grievous injuries and one simple injury. Based on the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor supported by the disability certificate, the Tribunal observed that the disability suffered by the claimant to different parts of the body was as follows:- (i) 50% restriction in the movement of the left wrist – disability at 10%, (ii) 20% restriction in the movement of left hand – disability at 6%, (iii) 30% restriction in the movement of left ankle – disability at 9% and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv) Improper fusion of two bones of left leg – disability at 10% Totally the disability is assessed at 35%. Based on this parameters, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 9% per annum:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Two grievous injuries (Rs.5,000/- each) Rs.10,000/- 2 One simple injury Rs. 2,000/- 3 Disability assessed at 35% Rs.35,000/- 4 Pain and suffering Rs. 3,000/- 5 Extra nourishment Rs. 2,000/- 6 Transport expenses Rs. 1,000/- 7 X-Ray cost Rs. 300/- 8 Medical expenses as per Ex.A-3 Rs. 3,770/- Total Rs.57,070/- 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that a sum of Rs.10,000/- granted for two grievous injuries and a sum of Rs.2,000/- granted towards one simple injury are not justified as the sum of Rs.35,000/- has been granted for disability and the interest granted at 9% is on the higher side. Therefore, the same has to be reduced. 7. Having perused the order of the Tribunal and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation on the above said contention for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 23.12.2000. The injured claimant was 18 years old at the time of accident and was working in a cement shop. (ii) Consequent to the injury, the claimant was treated in three hospitals. Therefore, he would have spent some amount towards attender charges. No amount was granted towards attender charges. (iii) He suffered various degrees of disability in different parts of the body. (iv) He would be out of employment for some period of time due to injuries. No amount was granted towards loss of income during the period of treatment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) During the period of treatment the claimant might have undergone pain and suffering due to injuries. The compensation granted for pain and suffering, extra nourishment, transport expenses are very very meagre. The claimant will be entitled to higher compensation for pain and suffering, extra nourishment and transport expenses. (vi) Considering the above aspects, the sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards two grievous injuries and the sum of Rs.2,000/- granted towards one simple injury can be adjusted on the other heads as stated above. (vii) Since the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.57,070/- is marginally lower, the higher interest granted at 9% (i.e.) 1.5% over and above the existing rate of interest at 7.5%, can be accepted. 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 Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Arni. 2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section,High Court, Madras. + 1 CC to Mr.V.Ramesh,Advocate,SR.5665 C.M.A.No.246 of 2009 KA(CO) EM/25.2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/