IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.12.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA C.M.A.No.903 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.3537 of 2006 United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Ranipet. .. Appellant /2nd Respondent ..Vs.. 1.Natarajan 1st Respondent/Claimant 2.S.Rathina ...2nd Respondent/1st Respondent PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and Judgment dated 08.02.2005 in M.C.O.P.No.214 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar. For Appellant : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents: Mr.K.S.Senthil Kumar for Mr.N.G.Parthiban for R1 JUDGMENT The United India Insurance Company Limited, Ranipet, the second respondent in M.C.O.P.NO.214 of 2002 has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2.The first respondent/claimant filed the above claim petition before the Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him, in a road accident that took place on 19.01.2002, when, he was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 21 A 9015 along vellakulam kootroad. According to the first respondent/claimant, a speeding van bearing Registration No.TN 25 X 3408 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the present appellant, hit the two wheeler ridden by the first respondent, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. 3.According to him, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van bearing Registration No.TN 25 X 3408, was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the present appellant Insurance Company, both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him. 4.The owner of the van bearing Registration No.TN 25 X 3408, remained absent before the tribunal and therefore, he was set ex-parte. The present appellant Insurance Company contested the claim petition. The tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,83,600/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the tribunal, the United India Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal. 5.Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company would contend that doctor Kannan Isac (PW2) without verifying the medical records had assessed the partial permanent disability as 50%. He drew the attention of this Court, to a copy of the Accident Register(Ex.P3) and contended that nowhere in the accident register, fracture of little finger and right leg have been indicated. 6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant contended that the award passed by the tribunal cannot be disturbed at this stage and that though doctor Kannan Isac(PW2) has assessed the partial permanent disability as 50% the tribunal had fixed the partial permanent disability only as 30%. In the Accident Register (Ex.P3), following injuries were mentioned: “(i). Lacerated injury on right eye 2 ½ x ½ cm (ii). Abrasion right forearm 2 x 1 ½ cm (iii). Abrasion right hit and ring finger ½ x ½ cm (iv). Abrasion right side lenar (v). Abrasion right leg ½ x ½ cm (vi). Abrasion right ankle 1 x1 cm” 7.Dr.Ragu, Civil Surgeon, Government Head Quarters, Kancheepuram has opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. It is pertinent to point out that the doctor has not clearly indicated, which of the above injuries are grievous in nature. Furthermore, the first respondent/claimant was not even advised to take any X-ray and also he was not hospitalized. Moreover, neither the X-rays nor the X-ray reports were filed before the tribunal. Dr.Kannan Isac (PW2) has opined that there is a mal-union of bones in right little finger and fracture in right leg. In the disability certificate (Ex.P7) nothing is mentioned about the medical records which he verified before issuing the disability certificate. The tribunal had failed to look into these aspects. 8.A perusal of the Accident Register(Ex.P3) clearly shows that the injuries are simple in nature and absolutely no evidence was adduced by the first respondent/claimant to show that he was hospitalized continuously for a period of more than 20 days. The tribunal is wrong in awarding a sum of Rs.1,83,600/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the first respondent/claimant. Since the injuries sustained by the first respondent are simple in nature, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to them which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. 9.In the result, (i) The appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. (ii) The compensation of Rs.1,83,600/- is reduced to Rs.25,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. (iii)The appellant/Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw/recover the amount paid in excess of the award passed by this court. The first respondent is also directed to deposit the award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.214 of 2002 withdrawn by him in excess of the award amount passed by this court within a period of four weeks from the date of a copy of this order. vkr/bga Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras - 104. +1cc to Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, S.R.No.89752 +1cc to Mr.K.G.Senthil KUmar, Advocate, S.R.No.89368 C.M.A.No.903 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.3537 of 2006 Kak(22/03/2019)