IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.857 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011 M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd., No.372, Old No.231, T.T.K.Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 18. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent Versus 1.M.Domnic 2.D.Jayachandran ... Respondents/Petitioner and 1st Respondent Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.552 of 2006, dated 30.10.2009, on the file of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court – II Judge, Chennai. For Appellant : M/s.J.Chandran For Respondents : M/s.A.A.Venkatesan (R-1) J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / New India Assurance Company Limited against the award and decree dated 30.10.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.552 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 15.09.2005 at about 05.30 hours, the petitioner and others were travelling in the first respondent's mini-bus bearing Registration No.TN05-M-7317 from Sivagangai to Chennai, when the bus was nearing Maduranthakam at that time the driver had driven the bus in a rash and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ negligent manner and tried to overtake the ongoing vehicle, as a result, the driver dashed the bus on the stationed lorry, in the result, the petitioner and others had sustained injuries. 3.The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The first respondent bus was not insured with this respondent and the vehicle was not possessing valid records and the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence. The age, income and occupation of the claimant is denied besides the compensation amount is excessive. 4.On the averments of both parties, the tribunal had framed three issues for consideration, namely; “(i)Whether the driver of the first respondent is responsible for the accident? (ii)Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner? (iii)What is the quantum of compensation that the petitioner is entitled to?” 5.In the said accident three O.Ps' were filed and common judgment pronounced. PW1 claimant in O.P.No.551 of 2005 had adduced evidence stating that her husband and others were travelling in the mini-bus on 15.09.2005, when the bus was nearing Maduranthakam when at that point of time, the driver had tried to overtake the on-going vehicle, in the result, he had dashed the bus against the stationed lorry, as a consequence her husband died and others had sustained injuries including this claimant. 6.PW2 claimant had adduced evidence stating that in the said accident, he had sustained grievous injuries including bone fracture and injuries to his body and face. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Chengulpet, thereafter he was referred to Government Hospital at Chennai, before the accident he was a coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month. PW4 doctor had examined the claimant and assessed the disability as 45%. 7.On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,84,590/- with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum as compensation. 8.Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 9.The learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the Doctor assessed the disability as 45% which is on the higher side. Rs.36,000/- awarded under the head of 'pain and suffering' is also on the higher side. The rate of interest fixed at 9.5% per annum is also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on the higher side as per Reserve Bank of India guidelines. 10.Learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries including bone fracture and the same was established before the Tribunal through doctor's evidence, who assessed the disability as 45% after examining the claimant and verifying the medical records, as such the claimant is entitled to receive Rs.90,000/- under the head of 'permanent disability', but the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.67,500/-. 11. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.36,000/- under the head of 'pain and suffering', this amount is reduced to Rs.20,000/-. Rs.10,000/- had been awarded under the head of 'loss of expectation of life' and this head is set-aside. Rs.18,000/- had been awarded under the head of 'loss of income', this amount is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. In total, this Court reduces Rs.29,000/-. Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs.1,84,590/- to Rs.1,55,590/-, which is fair and justifiable. The rate of interest modified as Rs.7.5% per annum. Hence, this Court directs the appellant / New India Insurance Company to comply with this Court order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such compliance being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the modified compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.552 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai, after filing a Memo along with this order. 12.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai made in M.C.O.P.No.552 of 2006, dated 30.10.2009 is modified. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar r n s https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai. UG(CO) km/24.6. C.M.A.NO.857 OF 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/