IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.3.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.702 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam City, Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. Vasantha. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 9.10.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.244 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court), Myladudurai. For appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 9.10.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.244 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court), Myladudurai. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 6.11.2004. The injured claimant Vasantha, aged 55 years, a house-wife, was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. When she was getting down from the bus at a bus stop, the driver of the bus without noticing that the said Vasantha was getting down, started the vehicle suddenly. As a result of which, the said Vasantha was thrown out of the bus and the left tyre of the bus ran over her legs. The right and left knee were crushed. She was taken in ambulance to Karaikal General https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hospital and was treated from 6.11.2004 to 7.12.2004. A case was registered against the driver of the bus. She filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injury suffered in the accident. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.Rajasekaran as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the true copy of FIR, dated 7.11.2004, Ex.A-2 is the true copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 9.11.2004, Ex.A-3 is the true copy of discharge summary and Ex.A-4 is the disability certificate assessing disability at 32%. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal while fixing the income notionally at Rs.15,000/- per annum by adopting 11 multiplier and by reducing the disability to 15%, fixed the pecuniary loss in a sum of Rs.24,750/- (Rs.15,000/- x 11 x 15% = Rs.24,750/-). In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Permanent disability Rs.24,750/- 2 Extra nourishment expenses Rs. 500/- 3 Transport expenses Rs. 2,000/- 4 Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.47,250/- 5. As far as the negligence is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant does not seriously dispute the finding of the Tribunal that the accident and the injury caused to the claimant is due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus as also the liability fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimant. Hence, the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability fixed on the appellant is confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to multiplier method adopted for determining the compensation in a case of injury. 7. Though such a plea can be considered for the purpose of argument, in this case, while considering the nature of injury suffered by the 55 years old housewife, the period of hospitalization, the amount of pain and suffering undergone by her at the time when she was run over by the tyre of the bus on her two legs resulting in the serious injuries to both the knees, the total compensation does not appear to be excessive or unreasonable. Eventhough the disability has been assessed at 32% by the doctor under Ex.A-4, the Tribunal has reduced the disability to 15% merely on the premise that it appears to be excessive. No other reason is given by the Tribunal to reduce the percentage of the disability. Therefore, the sum of Rs.24,750/- granted for disability even if found marginally higher, it can be adjusted towards the lesser compensation granted for extra nourishment and nil compensation for attender charges. 8. Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.47,250/- is reasonable and does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2004 and the award is of the year 2007. 9. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Additional Subordinate Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Myladudurai. 1 cc to Mr.V. Ramesh, Advocate, SR. 11334 C.M.A.No.702 of 2009 SGL (CO) kk 18/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/