IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.12. 2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3983 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Divisional Office, Villupuram Division-III, Kancheepuram .. Appellant/ Respondent Vs. Mohan .. Respondent / Petitioner . . . Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 06.12.2007 made in M.C.O.P No.324 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court) Cheyyar. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh For respondent : . . . J U D G M E N T The State Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 06.12.2007 made in M.C.O.P No.324 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court) Cheyyar. 2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 08.10.2003. The injured claimant Mohan, aged 28 years, an agricultural labourer and Mason was riding his bicycle when he was hit by the Appellant Transport Corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and he was thrown out of the vehicle by the impact and suffered injuries to the right hand, right knee, hip, left knee and injuries all over the body. He was taken to Vandavasi Government Hospital and thereafter took treatment in the Government General Hospital at Chennai. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- stating that his income was Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of accident. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.Kannan Issac was examined as P.W.2. . Documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7. Ex.P.1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the Accident Register. Ex.P.3 is the final report. Ex.p.4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's inspection report Ex.P.5 is the receipt for payment for dressing bandage. Ex.p.6 is the disability certificate and Ex.P.7 is the X ray. The driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. But, no documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation Bus, who was responsible for the accident and the injury caused to the claimant and the liability fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimant, is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant and such finding is confirmed. 5.The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. The issue relating to the compensation was decided from para 9 of the award onwards in answer to point No.2 by the Tribunal. The income of the injured claimant, an agricultural labour and mason was taken as Rs.150/- per day by the Tribunal. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the Accident register showing the nature of injuries to the forehead, right hand, right knee, hip, left knee and other injuries all over the body. It is stated that the injured claimant was in the Chennai Government General hospital for 10 days. The Doctor, who was examined as P.W.2, on the basis of medical records and X ray, stated that there was fracture of the left arm, which has mal- united and he opined that the disability is 40%. Considering all these factors, the age, income and occupation of the injured claimant, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest. Sl.N o. Award Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 For disability of 40% Rs. 40,000/- 2. For one grievous injury Rs. 10,000/- 3 For four simple injuries Rs 8,000 /- 4 Pain and Suffering and extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.N o. Award Amount granted by the Tribunal 5 Depression and loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/- 6 Transport expenses Rs. 2,000/- 7 X-ray expense Rs. 300/- Total Rs. 70,300/- 6. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that a sum of Rs.18,000/- granted for the injuries suffered by the claimant and Rs.5,000/- for loss of amenities granted by the Tribunal, cannot be justified as he is compensated for disability and pain and suffering and therefore, the award has to be reduced. 7. On going through the award, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea of the appellant's counsel for reduction of the quantum of compensation for the following reasons: 1. The accident in this case happened in the year 2003 and the injured claimant is 28 years old, agricultural labourer cum Mason by occupation. He would be out of employment for certain period due to the injuries and treatment. But no amount has been granted for loss of income during the period of treatment. The sum of Rs.5,000/- granted for depression and loss of amenities can be adjusted towards loss of income during the period of treatment. ii. No amount has been granted for attendant charges. Meagre amount has been granted for pain and suffering and extra nourishment. Hence, the sum of Rs.18,000/- granted for grievous and simple injuries, can be adjusted towards pain and suffering. iii. Even if there is excess amount, it can be adjusted towards attender charges and the like. iv. Hence, the total compensation of Rs.70,300/- granted by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction or modification as also, the interest at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2003 and the award was passed in the year 2007. 8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Learned counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the entire award amount and is granted. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. PAL To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court,Cheyyar. 1 cc to Mr.V. Ramesh, Sr. 71271 CMA No. 3983 of 2008 SA (CO) kk 2/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/