IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 2.3.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.503 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram Division-III, Kancheepuram. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. Minor K.Lakshmi, (minor represented by father and next friend Kesavan). ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 20.6.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2035 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. For appellant : Mr.N.Anand ----- JUDGMENT The Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 20.6.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2035 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 4.3.2002. The minor claimant K.Lakshmi, aged 15 years and a 10th Standard student, along with other students, was trying to board the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. Before all the students boarded the bus, the conductor of the bus blew the whistle and the driver of the bus started it in a rash and negligent manner, because of which, the minor injured petitioner and some other students fell down and sustained injuries. The claimant herein suffered the following injuries:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.Fracture of both bones in the lower and right leg, 2.Fracture of right foot, 3.Head injury and 4.Multiple injuries all over the body. She filed a claim through her father for compensation in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injury suffered in the accident. 3. In support of the claim, the minor injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.J.R.R.Thiyagarajan, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Exs.A-1 and are the O.P. Chits, Ex.A-3 is the FIR, Ex.A-4 is the disability certificate, Ex.A-5 is the X-Ray and Ex.A-6 is the X-Ray report. On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal, one Jeyachandran, was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, who was responsible for the accident, in which the minor claimant suffered injuries and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation to compensate the injured claimant is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and such finding of the Tribunal is confirmed. 5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal decided the issue in paragraphs 10 onwards in answer to point No.2. It is stated that the injured claimant, 15 years old girl student, suffered 30% disability and that has been assessed under Ex.A-4. She was treated in three hospitals, viz., C.M.O. Government Hospital, Sriperumpudur, then at Government General Hospital, Chennai and thereafter at Puthur Bone Setting Hospital. The Tribunal considering the injury suffered, the period of treatment and the disability assessed at 30% granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Disability assessed at 30% Rs.30,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- 3 Transport expenses Rs. 2,000/- 4 Extra nourishment expenses Rs. 3,000/- 5 Pain, shock and suffering Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.60,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that a sum of Rs.5,000/- granted for the medical expenses without any documentary proof is not sustainable. 7. On going through the award of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction in the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- (i) The injured claimant is a 15 years old girl student at the time of accident. She suffered injuries in the accident. She was treated in three hospitals, viz., C.M.O. Government Hospital, Sriperumpudur, then at Government General Hospital, Chennai and thereafter at Puthur Bone Setting Hospital. Even though no medical receipt was produced, there is no dispute that the injured claimant had taken treatment in the above hospitals. For that some amount has to be spent by the injured claimant. The Tribunal granted only a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, which is reasonable. (ii) No amount was granted towards attender charges. (iii) Meagre amounts are granted by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment expenses and transport expenses even though the claimant has taken treatment in three hospitals. (iv) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation in a sum of Rs.60,000/- granted by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2002 and the award was passed in the year 2007. 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 same shall be invested as ordered by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ts To The Registrar, Small Causes Court, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chennai. C.M.A.No.503 of 2009 BS(CO) SRA(11/03/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/