IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 10.02.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1271 of 2006 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited Villupuram ... Appellant/Respondent Versus Murugan (Injured) (Dumb) rep. by wife and next friend Lakshmi ... Respondent/Petitioner Prayer:- This appeal is preferred under section 173 of MV Act against the Award and Decree dated 18.07.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.485 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Villupuram. For Appellant : Mr. A. Babu For Respondent : No Appearance - - - J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, against the award and decree dated 18.07.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.485 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Villupuram. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 13.02.2003, at about 14.00 hours, when the petitioner was travelling on a tractor, bearing Registration No.TN-32-A-2012 from Timmalai to Thiyagadurugam, the respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-1665 dashed against the tractor, resulting in the petitioner sustaining grievous injuries. Hence, he has filed the claim petition against the respondent for a sum of Rs.4,46,800/- with interest. 3. The respondent had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied the age, income, occupation, nature of injuries and period of treatment. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent further stated that the owner of the tractor and Insurance Companies are necessary parties in the said accident since the tractor had also been involved in the accident. The compensation amount is an excessive one. 4. On pleading of both the parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration, viz.,:- “1. Whether the driver of the vehicles TN-32-A-2012 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the accident? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed by him? 3. To what other reliefs the petitioner is entitled to?” 5. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and the claimant marked seven documents, viz., First Information Report, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Wound Certificate, Accident Register, Medical records, Disability Certificate and X- ray. On the side of the respondent, the driver was examined and no document was marked. 6. P.W.1, had adduced evidence stating that he had sustained fracture injuries on his left and right clavicle bones, besides nine simple injuries. After the accident, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Kallakuruchi, wherein he had undergone treatment. Thereafter, he was referred to the Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital, Salem, wherein he had undergone treatment for a period of 15 days. The claimant is a load man aged about 27 years, and his earning was Rs.3,000/- per month. In order to prove the same, he had marked First Information Report and Medical records. 7. P.W.2 had adduced evidence stating that the claimant had sustained 55% disability and he had sustained nine simple injuries and besides this his clavicle bones had been fractured. 8. R.W.1 had adduced evidence stating that the tractor which was proceeding in front of the bus had suddenly stopped and the petitioner got down from the tractor and dashed against the bus. As such, there was no negligence on the side of the driver of the bus. 9. On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,51,600/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by this award, the appellant has filed the above appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the driver of the tractor had been negligent. Therefore, the owner of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tractor and Insurance Companies are necessary parties. The Tribunal's award of a sum of Rs.2,37,600/- towards disability after adopting multiplier method is inappropriate, since the claimant had sustained simple injuries and his avocation had not been affected. On behalf of the petitioner his wife was examined as P.W.1, as next friend and guardian, without obtaining necessary order from the District Court to prove that she is the guardian of the injured. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is not proper in the instant case, considering the nature of injuries, this Court further opines that the guardianship certificate is not required to proceed with the claim case since the amount is being paid in the name of the injured person. Further, the Tribunal had not considered the award under the necessary heads. Therefore, this Court restructures the award as follows:- Rs.90,000/- towards disability; Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earning during the medical treatment period and convalescent period ; and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. In total this Court awards a sum of Rs.2,18,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of payment of compensation, as this is found to be fair and equitable. Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs.2,51,600/- to Rs.2,18,000/-. 12. It is open to the claimant to withdraw compensation with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.485 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law, subject to withdrawals if any, made already. Likewise the appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, after observing necessary formalities of the Court below. 13. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree dated 18.07.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.485 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Villupuram, is modified. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. smn Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram 2. The Section Officer, VR Section High Court, Madras + 2ccs to Mr. A. Babu, Advocate SR No.10458 C.M.A.NO.1271 OF 2006 MBS(CO) SR/16.3.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/