IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.3.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.671 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram Division-II, Rangapuram, Vellore-9. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. J.Vijayakumar. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 24.1.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.313 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court), Vellore. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 24.1.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.313 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court), Vellore. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 16.2.2006. The injured claimant J.Vijayakumar, aged 27 years, owner of M/s.Adithya Hi-tech Furniture Mart and a Carpenter, was travelling on his Yamaha motorcycle on the Arni Road. The appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the two https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wheeler. In that accident, the said Vijayakumar suffered fracture to his right leg. He took treatment at Vellore Government Medical College Hospital. He filed a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries suffered in the accident stating that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of accident. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Shanmugasundaram, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the FIR dated 17.2.2006, Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate dated 10.3.2006, Exs.A-3 and A-4 series are the medical bills, Ex.A-5 is the disability certificate dated 3.11.2007, Ex.A-6 is the X-Ray, Ex.A-7 is the graphic chart certificate and Exs.A-8 and A-9 are the discharge summaries. The Conductor of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the injuries suffered by the claimant, Ex.A-2 wound certificate, Ex.A-5 disability certificate assessing the disability at 35%, Exs.A-3 and A-4, the medical bills and Ex.A-6 X-Ray, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 6% interest per annum:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Disability assessed at 35% Rs. 35,000/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- 3 Medical expenses as per Exs.3 and A-4 Rs. 38,000/- 4 Transport expenses Rs. 3,000/- 5 Extra nourishment expenses Rs. 3,000/- 6 Loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 1,09,000/- 5. The Tribunal discussed the negligence in paragraph 5 of the award in answer to point No.1 and held that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus based on Ex.A-1 FIR. There is no material to controvert the same. The evidence of R.W.1, the conductor of the bus, did not appeal to the Tribunal on merits as the driver of the bus was not examined. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, as responsible for the accident and the injury and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation, based on material on record, is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and hence the same is confirmed. 6. The only serious contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. In particular, it is contended that for the disability assessed at 35%, the compensation granted is on the higher side. The sum of Rs.25,000/- granted towards loss of income is also excessive. Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 7. On perusing the award, this court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal on the above contention for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 16.2.2006. The injured claimant is aged about 27 years, at the time of accident. He is a owner of M/s.Adithya Hi-tech Furniture Mart and a carpenter by occupation. (ii) In the accident, according to the doctor P.W.2, the claimant suffered fracture on the right thigh bone. The right thigh bone mal united and his leg was shortened to an extent of 2-/ 12 c.m. Because of this, the injured claimant cannot look after his business and work as before. The doctor assessed the disability at 35%. To contravert the evidence of the doctor, no evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant transport corporation so as to reduce the disability assessed by the doctor. Hence, the sum of Rs.35,000/- granted towards 35% disability is reasonable and the same is confirmed. (iii) No amount was granted towards attender charges to which the claimant is entitled to. (iv) The sum of Rs.5,000/- granted towards pain and suffering is very very low considering the age and occupation of the injured claimant. (v) Considering the injuries suffered by the claimant, the sum of Rs.3,000/- granted towards transport expenses and the sum of Rs.3,000/- granted towards extra nourishment expenses are reasonable and the same are confirmed. (vi) The sum of Rs.38,000/- granted towards medical expenses is based on medical bills Exs.A-3 and A-4, which cannot be and is not disputed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (vii) The rate of interest granted in this case is only 6% which is low by prevailing standards. (viii) The marginally higher compensation granted towards loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence can be adjusted towards attender charges and the lesser amount granted towards pain and suffering and the lesser rate of interest granted at 6%. (ix) Considering all these aspects, the total compensation granted at Rs.1,09,000/- does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 6%. 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 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Vellore. +1cc to Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate Sr 8614 BV(CO) km/6.4. C.M.A.No.671 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/