IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:04.12. 2008 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 3778 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. Ramya (Minor) rep. by her father Kanagaraj. .. Respondent/Petitioner . . . Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 06.02.2007 in MCOP No. 182 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Subordinate Court), Chidambaram. . . . For Appellant : Mr.N.Anand For Respondent : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan . . . JUDGMENT The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 06.02.2007 in MCOP No. 182 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Subordinate Court) , Chidambaram. 2. It is a case of injury. The accident, in this case happened on 29.12.2003 The injured claimant ,Minor Ramya aged about 14 years at the time of the accident, a student, was travelling along with her family in the appellant Transport Corporation bus. Some of the passengers were getting down from the bus in a bus stop and while the injured minor girl was also getting down from the bus, the driver started the bus in a rash and negligent manner, whereby the minor girl was thrown out and she sustained the following injuries. (i) injuries to her head. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) Contusion over the right eye affecting the vision. (iii) Bleeding in the right ear resulting in loss of hearing.(iv) Bone tenderness over shoulder and on the right side back of the body (v) laceration and abrasions all over the body including the right knee. Initially, she was admitted and treated at Raja Muthiah Medical College Hospital at Annamalai nagar in Chidambaram and then at the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddalore and thereafter at Government General Hospital at Chennai and also at M/S. Aravind Eye Hospital. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. 3. In support of the claim, the father of the injured minor girl was examined as P.W.1 and one Sakthivel eye witness was examined as P.W.2 and Dr.Sukumar was examined as P.W.3. Documents Exs.P.1 to P.22 were marked. The driver of the Appellant Transport Corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was let in on the side of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal. 4. As far as the negligence is concerned, the Tribunal decided the issue in answer to Point No.1. The Tribunal relying upon the statements of P.Ws 1 and 2 who are eye witness to the accident, and also taking note of the First Information Report Ex.P.1, Motor Vehicle Inspector's report Ex.P.2 and the Accident Register Ex.P.3 held that the injuries caused to the minor girl was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus. The evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the bus was rejected on the ground that he did not witness the accident. He responded only after the alert made by the passengers that a girl had fallen down from the bus. In the absence of any material to support appellants' plea of no negligence, this Court is inclined to accept the finding of the Tribunal that due to the negligence of the driver of the appellant bus, the accident happened. The finding of the Tribunal is confirmed. 5. As far as compensation is concerned, the issue was decided by the Tribunal in answer to Point No.3. from para 10 onwards. The Tribunal went into the details of the treatment given at Raja Muthiah Medical College Hospital, Chidambaram and then at Government Headquarters hospital at Cuddalore and then at Government General Hospital at Chennai and also at M/S.Aravind Eye hospital relating to the treatment for loss of vision. The medical treatments as above are borne out by records. The evidence of the Doctor,P.W.3 is that consequent to the injuries sustained by the minor girl, she has become partially deaf and that is due to the damage to the nerves and the loss of hearing is 60% and the permanent disability is 40%. The claimant has been advised to wear digital hearing aid which would cost from Rs.30,000/- to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.75,000/-. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of P.W.3, doctor in its entirety with regard to the disability suffered of the injured claimant. The Tribunal held that the permanent disability for loss of hearing cannot be 40%. 6. The Tribunal, by following the principles set out in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another (2005(1) CTC 38 , was not inclined to follow the multiplier method to grant compensation. However, for the disability assessed at 40% a sum of Rs.50,000/- was granted as compensation and this includes compensation for loss of marriage prospects due to partial deafness, the difficulty in getting educated and loss of employment opportunities. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was granted for the purchase of digital hearing aid. For pain, shock and suffering,consequent to the injuries and treatment, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was granted. Further, considering the long period of treatment at different hospitals, the expenditure for travel and loss of income of the parent father during the period of treatment and the young age of the injured claimant, Rs.20,000/- was granted for transport and extra nourishment, totaling Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at 9% p.a was granted. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 For Disability at 40% Loss of marriage prospectus Rs. 50,000/- 2 Pain and Suffering Rs. 20,000/- 3 For purchase of digital hearing aid Rs. 50,000/- 4 Transport, Extra Nourishment Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs.1,40,000/- 7. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded for reduction in the quantum of compensation stating that for disability,higher compensation has been granted. 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the compensation or interest awarded in this case for the following reasons. The minor claimant has suffered a number of injuries as stated above and was treated in four different hospitals from time to time. The loss of hearing is assessed at 60% by the Doctor and the disability it is stated at 40% by the Doctor. The prolonged treatment taken by the injured claimant establishes the serious nature of injury and the treatment. The claimant is entitled to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compensation for disability, medical expenses and attendant charges, extra nourishment, loss of marriage prospects, etc. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the loss of marital prospectus of the young girl due to the deafness caused by the accident. A sum of Rs.50,000/- granted by the Tribunal for the purchase of digital hearing aid is based on the evidence of the doctor and that cannot be found fault with. Considering all these aspects, the total compensation granted by the Tribunal in this case does not require further reduction as also the interest at 9% as it is granted taking note of the prevailing interest for term deposits at the relevant time in a Nationalised Bank. Therefore, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation or the interest awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Accordingly, finding no merits, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the entire amount and is granted. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same as directed by the Tribunal. PAL Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Chidambaram. + 1 cc to M/s. N. Anand, Advocate SR No. 68153 CMA No. 3778 of 2008 KSK(CO) SR/28.1.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/