IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.2780 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 and 1 of 2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.38, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.E.Srinivasan declared major as per order in M.P.No.1214 of 2009 dated 17.6.2009 2.R.Nathuram ... Respondents/Petitioner/1st Respondent PRAYER: The above appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act against the award and decree dated 06.08.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.4481 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.Arun Kumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Haridoss (R-1) - - - J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / United India Insurance Co. Ltd., against the award and decree dated 06.08.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.4481 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 14.06.2005, at about 16.00 hours, while the petitioner was travelling as a passenger in the share auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-05-L-3975 from Manali to Manali Pudu Nagar and when it was near Lakshmi-Saraswathi Thirumana Mandapam, Manali, Chennai-103, the driver of the said auto-rickshaw drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the auto capsized. Due to the above accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondents. The 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-05-L-3975. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The 2nd respondent has resisted the claim and denied the averments in the claim regarding manner of accident, age, occupation, nature of injuries sustained and medical treatment undergone. It was stated that as the petitioner and some others who were travelling in the said auto-rickshaw had suddenly tried to step down, the driver of the auto had applied sudden brake and as a result the accident had occurred and as such the petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence. It was also denied that the share auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-05-L-3975 was validly insured with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident. The 2nd respondent had also denied the validity of permit, FC, Driving Licence of the driver of auto- rickshaw and validity of Tax particulars regarding 1st respondent's vehicle. It was also stated that the claim was excessive. 4. On the averments of both parties, the tribunal had framed four issues for consideration namely “(i)Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the share auto-rickshaw bearing Regn.No.TN-05-L-3975 ? (ii)Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation ? (iii)Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? (iv)To what relief is the petitioner entitled to get ?” 5. In the said accident, two other persons who had sustained injuries had also filed claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.4482 and 4483 of 2005. Based on the Memo filed for joint trial, all the petitions were taken together and common evidence recorded. On behalf of the petitioner four witnesses were examined and Exs. P1 to P13 were marked. On the respondents side no witness, no documents. 6. From the evidences of the injured petitioners PW1, Mr.Srinivasan in M.C.O.P.No.4481 of 2005, PW2, Mr.Perumal in M.C.O.P.No.4482 of 2005 and PW3 Mrs.Kosalai Devi in M.C.O.P.No.4483 of 2005, it is seen that on 14.06.2005, at about 16.00 hrs, while the above petitioners were travelling as passengers in a share auto- rickshaw bearing Regn.No.TN-05-L-3975 from Manali to Manali Pudunagar and when the auto was near Lakshmi Saraswathi Thirumana Mandapam, Manali, the driver of the said auto-rickshaw drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the auto capsized. Thereby the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. To corroborate the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3, Ex.P1 attested copy of FIR, had been marked. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ On perusal of Ex.P1, it is seen that one E.Ellamuthu, who is the father of the petitioner Srinivasan in M.C.O.P.No.4481 of 2005 had lodged the complaint on the date of occurrence itself. Pursuant to the complaint, a case had been registered against the driver of the share auto-rickshaw. No Contra evidence had been let in by the respondents side to disprove the contentions of the petitioner. Hence, the tribunal held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle. Hence, the respondents were held liable to compensate the petitioner. 7.From a scrutiny of Ex.P2 is the discharge summary issued by Anand Hospital, Chennai, it is seen that the petitioner had sustained injuries due to the accident. Ex.P3, the discharge summary shows that he had taken treatment as inpatient from 14.06.2005 to 18.06.2005. He had suffered fracture of pubic vamairight and fracture of right parietal bone. Ex.P9, is the disability certificate issued by PW4. Dr.Thiagarajan, PW4, the Doctor, who examined the petitioner assessed his disability at 50%. However, the Tribunal were of the view that disability assessed was on the higher side and held that the disability could be taken as 45%. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.72,000/- to the petitioner. The breakup of compensation is as follows: For Transport to Hospital - Rs.2,000/- For Extra nourishment - Rs.3,000/- For Medical Expenses - Rs.4,000/- For Attendant Charges - Rs.3,000/- For Pain and Sufferings - Rs.15,000/- For Compensation for continuing permanent disability of 50% - Rs.45,000/- In Total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.72,000/-as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of numbering of petition till date of deposit. The Tribunal directed that both the respondents are jointly and severally ordered to deposit the above said award with interest, within two months from the date of the order into the credit of M.C.O.P. No.4481 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent / United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has filed the present appeal to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 9.The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal failed to note that the alleged injuries and disability will not affect the earning power and further it was pointed out that the disability of 50% assessed by PW4 was excessive. It was contended that the award granted under various heads were inappropriate and excessive. The learned counsel pointedly mentioned that the award was passed on 06.08.2009. In the relevant period, the rate of interest was only 7.5% per annum. But, the learned Tribunal had fixed the interest at 9.5% per annum, which is improper. 10.The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claim petition was filed in the year 2005, when the rate of interest was 9.5% per annum. The same had been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 50% and the claimant's age was 15 years. As such, the claimant is entitled to receive adequate compensation under the head of 'disability'. The claimant is a student and he has sustained skull injuries and multiple injuries all over the body. Therefore, the award amount is not on the higher side. 11.On considering 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 rate of interest fixed as 9.5% is on the higher side. Hence, this Court modifies the interest at 7.5% per annum. The compensation amount is reasonable. As such, the quantum of compensation is confirmed. 12.Therefore, this Court directs the appellant / United India Insurance Company Limited to pay the entire compensation amount as fixed by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment of compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such a deposit being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.4481 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai, after filing a Memo along with this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13.Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. Consequently, the award and decree dated 06.08.2009, made in M.C.O.P.No.4481 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is modified. Accordingly ordered. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar r n s To The Vth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai. +1 CC to Mr.S.Arunkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.30607 +1 CC to Mr.S.Haridoss, Advocate, S.R.No.30608 C.M.A.No.2780 of 2010 UG(CO)] SRA(9/9/2011) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/