IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 24.01.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2789 OF 2006 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Division-2, rep. by its Managing Director, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri. .. Appellant/Respondent Versus Natesan .. Respondent/Petitioner Prayer: This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed on 29.06.2005 in M.C.O.P.No.1227 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court, Krishngiri). For Appellant: Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran For Respondent: Mr.P.Mani J U D G M E N T The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation against the Judgment and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1227 of 2003, dated 29.06.2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, and awarding a compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- together with interest at the rate 9% per annum. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 01.05.2002 at about 3.15 p.m., the petitioner was travelling in the respondent-bus bearing Registration No.TN 29 N 1121 from Hosur to Royakotta. When the bus was proceeding on the Hosur to Royakotta highway road and nearing Rane Brake Lining Company, the driver of the bus drove the bus without noticing a pit in the road, due to which there was violent shaking of the bus and consequently the claimant lost his grip and fell down from the bus, as a result he sustained grievous injuries which included bone fracture. Hence he claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. 3. The respondent/Transport Corporation Limited, had filed a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant. The respondent in the claim petition denied that on 01.05.2002 at about 3.15 p.m., when the petitioner had boarded in the Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN 29 N 1121 from Hosur to Royakotta and when the bus was proceeding near Rane Brake Lining Company, he was forced to stand on the rear side foot board of the bus and the conductor and driver didn't ask the passengers to move inside. The respondent further stated that the accident had happened due to the negligence of the claimant, as the petitioner who stood on the rear side foot board of the bus tried to see his luggage on the top of the luggage carrier at that time, he lost his grip and fell down from the bus himself and as such the accident had occurred. Therefore, the respondent / transport corporation sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. On considering the plea of the claimant and respondent, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues namely:- "1. Who was responsible for the accident? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?" 5. On the side of the claimant two witnesses were examined namely: PW.1-Natesan/claimant and PW.2-Dr.Arivuselvam and five documents were marked. Ex.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2-Wound Certificate, Ex.P3-Medical Receipts, Ex.P4-disability certificate, Ex.P5-Audiogram Report. On the side of the respondent RW.1-Karunagaran, driver of the bus was examined and no document was marked. 6. P.W.1 had adduced evidence stating that in the said accident he had sustained grievous injuries on his head, face, ear, eye and thigh. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to the Government hospital, Hosur for primary treatment and thereafter he was referred to Government Dental College, Bangalore for further treatment. P.W.1 further stated that at the time of accident, he was earning a sum of R.4,000/- per month as building contractor. 7. PW.2 Doctor had adduced evidence stating that the claimant sustained head injuries and as such his hearing was impaired. PW.2 after examining the claimant and verifying the medical records, has issued the disability certificate stating that the claimant sustained 65% disability. 8. Having considered the evidence adduced by the claimant and the medical evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the split up of compensation is as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For injuries .. Rs. 60,000.00 Loss of income .. Rs. 6,000.00 Transport charges .. Rs. 5,000.00 Nutrition .. Rs. 2,000.00 Medical expenses .. Rs. 10,000.00 Attendant charges .. Rs. 2,000.00 Pain and suffering .. Rs. 25,000.00 Permanent disability .. Rs. 40,000.00 Loss of earning capacity .. Rs. 25,000.00 -------------- Total: Rs.1,75,000.00 -------------- 9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal had awarded the compensation, a sum of Rs.60,000/- under the 'head of injuries' and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of permanent disability which are not pertinent in this case. The learned counsel further argued that Rs.25,000/- under the head of 'loss of earning capacity', is also not relevant in the said case. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that in the said accident, the claimant sustained 65% disability for impairment of his hearing and in order to prove the same, the P.W.2 doctor had also examined the claimant and assessed the disability of the claimant at 65%. The learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal had not considered the compensation under the head of loss of amenities. 11. 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 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal, a total sum of Rs.1,75,000/- is on higher side. Therefore, this Court modifies the compensation as follows:- Loss of income for 65% disability .. Rs. 65,000.00 Pain and suffering .. Rs. 15,000.00 Transport charges .. Rs. 5,000.00 Nutrition .. Rs. 5,000.00 Attendant charges .. Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of comfort and loss of amenities of life.. Rs. 30,000.00 -------------- Total.. Rs.1,25,000.00 -------------- In total this Court awards a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment. 12. On 11.10.2006 this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount together with interest and cost to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1227 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishngiri. It is open to the claimant to withdraw the modified compensation as fixed by this Court a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1227 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishngiri after filing a Memo along with a copy of this order, subject to withdrawals, if any, made. Likewise, the appellant Corporation is also entitled to withdraw the excess compensation along with accrued interest at 9% p.a. by filing a petition before the Tribunal and after observing necessary formalities. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.1227 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishngiri is modified. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar r n s To 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sub Court, Krishnagiri 2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division-2, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri. 3.The Section Officer, VR Section,High Court,Madras. +1cc to Mr.P.Mani, Advocate Sr 5324 +1cc to MR.P.Jagadeeswaran, Advocate Sr 5224 NM(CO) km/20.10. C.M.A.NO.2789 OF 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/