IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 9.3.2011 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1643 of 2008 The State rep. By its Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. R.Jegadeesan ... Respondent/petitione Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Mot Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award and decree dated 09.01.2007 made M.C.O.P.No.2207 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribun (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.R.Muthaian, G.A For Respondent : Mr.A.A.Venkatesan JUDGMENT The above appeal has been filed by the appellant/Commissioner f Police for State against the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.22 of 2000, dated 09.01.2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Clai Tribunal(IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, awarding compensation of Rs.6,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 02.05.1997 at about 14.00 hours while the petitioner w travelling as a passenger along with other passengers in the responde Police Van bearing Registration No.TN 07-0920 from Madurai to Rameswar when the van was nearing Paramakkudi, at that point of time, the driv had driven the Van in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against t road side tree, resulting which, the claimant had sustained grievo injuries including bone fractures. Hence, he filed the claim petiti against the respondent claiming a compensation for Rs.12,42,616/- wi interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The respondent filed a counter statement and resisted the cla petition stating that the accident had not been committed by the driver the van. The respondent further stated that the claimant has to pro his case after producing the driving licence of the driver and vehic particulars before the Tribunal.The respondent further submitted that t claim amount is an excessive one. 4.On considering the plea of both parties the Tribunal framed t issues as follows: "i) Who was responsible for the accident? ii)Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so what is the quantum of compensation?" 5.On the side of the claimant, two witnesses have been examined viz., P.W.1, the claimant himself and P.W.2 Dr.N.Sai Chandran. Fourte documents have been marked, namely Hospital discharge summaries, Sc report, prescription of the Doctor, Wound Certificate, Sala Certificate, Leave Certificate, Doctor's report, Doctor's Certificat Pension particulars, Photo with negative, X-Ray, First Information Repo and Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondent, no witness have been examined and no documents have been marked. 6.P.W.1 had adduced evidence stating that on 02.05.1997, at abo 2.00 p.m., he was travelling in the Police Van bearing Registration No. 07-0920 from Madurai to Rameswaram. When the Van was neari Paramakkudi, at that point of time, the driver of the Van had driven t vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road si tree. In the result, the claimant had sustained grievous injuri including bone fractures. 7.P.W.1 further adduced evidence stating that he had sustain three bone fractures and injuries on his skull. His neck bone had al been fractured. In the spinal cord, three bones had been fractured and his left hand, three fingers were cut off. Besides, he had sustain injuries on his left hand, left shoulder and bodily injured. Immediate after the accident, he was taken to Madurai Government Hospital, where he had undergone treatment as inpatient from 2.5.1997 to 13.5.199 Thereafter, he had taken treatment at Government General Hospital, Chenn from 14.5.1997 to 9.6.1997, wherein he had undergone three surgic operations. Besides, he had taken treatment as outpatient at Vija Hospital, Chennai. After the accident, he was unable to do his duty Head Constable in the respondent Department for the past four yea approximately and as such, he lost his salary. P.W.1 further adduc evidence that he had taken treatment at his residence with priva nursing. Due to the accident, he is unable to attend natural call. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.P.W.2 Doctor had assessed the disability of the claimant at 80 The claimant's both legs and both hands have become inactive. As suc the physical condition of the claimant is vigitative. P.W.1 furth adduced evidence that after the accident, he is unable to perform his du as Head Constable. Hence, he constrained to tender for volunta retirement. For his regular retirement, there is more than 7 years. 9.After considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusi the documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded the compensation und various heads, which are as follows: Loss of income for the period of three years Rs. 80,000/- Transportation Rs. 5,000/- Extra Nutrition Rs. 5,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- Pain and suffering and mental agony Rs. 25,000/- Partial permanent disability Loss of income and loss of earning capacity Rs.5,25,000/- ---------------- Total Rs.6,65,000/- ---------------- 10.In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of 6,65,000/- wi interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 11.Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has preferred t above appeal for scaling down the compensation. 12.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is admitted fact that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries includi bone fractures and even though he was granted medical leave, he was pa regular salary without any loss. The learned counsel further argued th after the accident, even though the claimant became unfit to serve in t Police Department, the Department never asked the claimant to tender f voluntary retirement from service. 13.The learned counsel for the appellant further argued th without any loss of income, the claimant was paid regular salary when was on medical leave during treatment, so the claimant did not incur a pecuniary loss. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14.The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claima had sustained bone fractures on his head. Besides, his left hand's thr fingers were cut off and his spinal cord bone and his neck bone were al fractured. Both legs and hands have become inactive, as such, t condition of the claimant is vigitative. In order to prove the same, marked the Medical Certificate. The appellant has also categorical admitted that the claimant was unable to perform his normal duty as He Constable in the Police Department. However, the appellant granted medic leave to the claimant for a period of three years. During the medic treatment period as he was paid regular salary, it is clearly proved th the claimant has become vigitative condition. Therefore, he is unable perform his normal duty. Hence, he tendered for voluntary retirement the appellant Police Department. After the accident, the claimant unable to walk and work as before and unable to sit normally. Hence, always requires one physical assistant. 15.The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant further argu that the claimant is still on vigitative condition and he requires o person's help. At the time of the accident, the claimant's age was 5 He served as Head Constable in the Police Department. The learned couns for the respondent/claimant further argued that there was possibility promoting the claimant to higher rank, but there is a loss due to t accident. The claimant is entitled to receive the compensation under t categories, namely the pecuniary loss and non pecuniary loss. T claimant lost his shape while he was in service, as such, he is entitl to receive compensation under the head pecuniary loss. Besides, he h sustained multiple bone fracture injuries including fingers cut, spin card fracture, neck bone fracture and skull fracture, as such, he entitled to receive additional compensation as claimed before t Tribunal. But, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award Rs.6,65,000/-. 16.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, t arguments submitted by the learned counsel on either side and on goi through the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Clai Tribunal (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, this Court is of t considered opinion that it is an admitted fact that the claimant serv in the appellant Police Department as Head Constable. At the time of t accident, he was 52 years old. After the accident, he was unable perform his normal duty. So, he was on medical leave for more than thr years. Further, the considered opinion of this Court is that the physic condition of the respondent/claimant does not permit him to perform h duty as Head Constable in the Police Department. Hence, he tendered f voluntary retirement from service, as such, he lost his pecunia benefits. Besides, the claimant has become vigitative conditio Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum compensation as decided by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna Therefore, the compensation of Rs.6,65,000/- awarded by the learned Mot https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Accidents Claims Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum fair and equitable. Hence, the award is confirmed. 17.Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the enti compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit M.C.O.P.No.2207 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribun (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, after filing a memo along wi this order subject to withdrawals if any, made already. 18.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismisse Consequently, the award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Clai Tribunal(IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.2207 2000 dated 9.1.2007 is confirmed. There is no order as to cost Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2008 is closed. cla Sd/- Asst.Registrar. // True copy // Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Registrar, Small Causes Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai. + 1 CC to Spl.Govt. Pleader CC SR 16977 C.M.A.No.1643 of 20 SAI(CO) AF (16.05.2011) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/