IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.2.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.330 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 140, Chotabhai Centre, Nungambakkam High Court, Chennai-600 034. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.S.Munivelu, ... Respondent/ Petitioner 2.M.Kannan, (2nd respondent ex parte in lower court. Notice may be dispensed with) ... Respondents/1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 11.8.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.512 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(V Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. For appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan JUDGMENT The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 11.8.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.512 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V 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 10.1.2006. The injured claimant S.Munivelu, aged 60 years, engaged in engineering consultancy work, was travelling on a two wheeler and was hit by auto rickshaw insured with the appellant insurance company. In that accident, the said Munivelu suffered fracture of the right wrist and other injuries all over the body. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injury suffered in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the accident stating that he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of accident. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Thiagarajan, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.P-1 is the discharge summary from Govt. General Hospital, Ex.P-2 is the copy of FIR, E.P-3 is the copy of rough sketch, Ex.P-4 is the disability certificate and Ex.P-5 is the X-Ray. On behalf of the appellant insurance company, the second respondent before the Tribunal, the co-investigator was examined as R.W.1. Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.R-1 is the investigation report, Ex.R-2 is the wound certificate issue by ICF Hospital and Ex.R-3 is the copy of charge sheet. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw who was responsible for the accident and the injury and the liability fixed on the appellant insurance company to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant in this appeal and the same is confirmed. The only question raised by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence and that of the evidence of the doctor assessing disability at 40% and also the medical records, granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 6,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- 3 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- 4 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- 5 Damage to scooter Rs. 2,000/- 6 Pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- 7 Disability assessed at40% Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.68,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the evidence of R.W.1, an investigator shows that the injuries are simple in nature and therefore, the disability assessed at 40% and the quantum of compensation is high. 7. In this case, a doctor was examined to give details of the injury and the disability. The matter is at best left to the decision of the doctor to assess the disability. Merely on the basis of the investigator's report, one cannot come to the conclusion that the injuries are simple in nature or that the compensation granted is higher. The plea should be established as per law. There is no contra evidence to show that the nature of injury is simple and disability assessed is high. Therefore, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.68,000/- for the injury suffered by 60 years old person is justified. In such view of the matter this Court is not inclined to interfere with the compensation granted by the Tribunal as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2006 and the award was passed in this case in the year 2008. 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 claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ts To The Registrar, Small Causes Court, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),Chennai. 1 cc to Mr.N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, SR. 6126 C.M.A.No.330 of 2009 KU (CO) kk 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/