IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.01.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.994 OF 2006 1. M/s.Sri Ragavendra Chamber Bricks, No.328, Salem Main Road, Krishnagiri Town, Dharmapuri District. 2. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., Krishnagiri .. Appellants Versus Lakshmi .. Respondent Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2004 made in MC.O.P.No.1297 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. For Appellant: Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellants / M/s.Sri Ragavendra Chamber Bricks and National Insurance Company Limited against the award and decree dated 09.11.2004 made in MC.O.P.No.1297 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:- On 08.04.2002, at about 14.30 p.m., the petitioner and other loading and unloading men and women were proceeding in the Tractor with Trailer bearing Registration No.TNF-4842 on the Poonthottam Main Road, Krishnagiri. The vehicle was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, when he suddenly applied brake resulting in the tractor capsizing, as such the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence the claim petition filed against the respondents for compensation a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. 3.The National Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The vehicle was not insured with the respondent and the driver was not possessing a valid driving licence. The respondent denied the said accident as alleged by the petitioner. The driver had driven the vehicle with due caution and at moderate speed, at that time a stray dog suddenly crossed the road, hence, the driver applied sudden brake, as a result, the vehicle had capsized. The tractor used for agricultural purpose, but the petitioner and others had travelled in the trailer as gratuitous passengers. Age, income and occupation of the claimant are denied. 4.On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed issues for consideration, namely; (i) Who was responsible for the said accident? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get the compensation. If so, what the quantum of the compensation? 5.On the side of the claimant, two witnesses had been examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the respondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 6.PW1 had adduced evidence stating that in the said accident she had sustained bone fracture to her right hand, right leg and neck, immediately she was taken to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, wherein she had undergone treatment for a day. She had spent a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses and she was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month, employed as a loading and unloading coolie. On 08.04.2002, at about 2.30 p.m., she and others had travelled with a load of bricks on the tractor trailer, due to the rash driving of the driver, the vehicle had capsized, as a result, she and others had sustained injuries. She further stated that after the accident she is unable to perform her normal work as a loading coolie. 7.PW2 doctor had adduced evidence stating that the claimant's right hand fourth finger got fractured and not united. The claimant is unable to fold and unfold her finger and unable to undertake any load work. He also assessed the disability as 25%. 8.On considering the evidence of the witnesses and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as compensation. The break-up of the compensation is as follows:- Rs.30,000/- towards grievous injuries; Rs.6,000/- towards loss of income; Rs.1,000/- for transport; Rs.12,000/- against nutrition; Rs.6,000/- damage to clothes; Rs.30,000/- for medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- for future medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- for permanent disability; Rs.5,000/- for loss of earning power. 9.Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed the above appeal. 10.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- for nutrition and Rs.6,000/- for damages to articles and Rs.30,000/- for grievous injuries and Rs.30,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- for future medical expenses are not appropriate, as such the Tribunal had committed discrepancy in the impugned award. The claimant had sustained simple injuries in the said accident, she had undergone treatment as inpatient for one day. The vehicle was used for agricultural purpose as such the claimant had travelled on the tractor as a gratuitous passenger, therefore, the policy is violated. 11.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award amount is not on the higher side, since the claimant was involved in the hard work as a loading and unloading coolie and she had sustained bone fracture injury on her right hand fourth finger. Therefore, she is unable to do any hard work for her livelihood. However, the mode of compensation is not proper for awarding under the various heads, hence, this Court restructures the same; Rs.50,000/-, Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/-, Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.20,000/- granted towards disability, transport, nutrition, attender charges, loss of income during the medical treatment period and convalescing period and towards medical expenses and loss of future earning power, discomfort, and loss of amenities respectively. As such, the award is confirmed which is fair and justifiable. 12.This Court directs the appellant / Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount together with interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to deductions, if any already deposited. After such a deposit being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit M.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Krishnagiri, after filing a Memo along with this order. 13.Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of Sub-Court, Krishnagiri made in M.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2003 , dated 09.11.2004 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. 11.01.2011 r n s Index : Yes. Internet: Yes. C.S.KARNAN.J., r n s To The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri. C.M.A.NO.994 OF 2006 11.01.2011