IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.11.2008 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 3565 of 2008 ....... The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kancheepuram. .. Appellant/ Respondent Vs. M. Ganesan .. Respondent/ Petitioner Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 1.3.2007 in MACTOP No. 1336 of 2004 on thbne file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Small Causes Court), Chennai. For Appellant : Mr. V. Ramesh For Respondent : Mr. A.Venkatesan JUDGMENT The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 1.3.2007 in MACTOP No. 1336 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Small Causes Court), Chennai. 2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 11.11.2003. The injured claimant Ganesan, aged 39 years, was travelling in a bus which hit a parked lorry and in that accident, he suffered fracture of both bone of the right leg and injuries all over the body. He was treated initially by the Chief Medical Officer at Ulundurpet Government Hospital and thereafter at Stanley Hospital, Chennai. He was also treated in a private hospital, Trichy. For the injuries suffered by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claimant, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was claimed as compensation. 3. In support of the claim petition, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. The doctor was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. Ex.P1 is the discharge summary. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate. Ex.P3 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.P4 is the disability certificate. Ex.P5 is the x- ray. On behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal, one Ayyappan, driver of bus, was examined as R.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport corporation bus and the liability of the appellant transport Corporation to compensate the claimant is not in dispute. Such finding of the Tribunal is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. As regards the compensation, the same was decided by the Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the award in answer to point No.3. According to the claimant, he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- as a clerk. The disability has been assessed by the Doctor at 40% under Ex.P4. Ex.P1 is the discharge summary given by the Government Stanley Hospital which shows that there is a fracture of both bone of right lower leg. Considering the nature of injury, age, occupation, income and period of treatment, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income Rs. 12,000/- 2 Transport expenses Rs. 1,000/- 3 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,500/- 4 Damage to cloth Rs. 500/- 5 Attender charges Rs. 800/- 6 Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- 7 Disability at 40% Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs. 70,800/- rounded to Rs.71,000/- 6. The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that higher compensation has been granted towards loss of income and for pain and suffering. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent, who pleaded that the compensation is just and reasonable and does not require any further reduction. 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. The accident in this case happened in the year 2003. The injured claimant was aged about 39 years and a clerk. He suffered fracture of both bone of the right leg. He was treated in three hospitals and therefore, he is entitled to reasonable compensation for pain and suffering, transport expenses, extra nourishment, attender charges and loss of income during the period of treatment. He is also entitled to reasonable compensation for the disability assessed at 40%. Insofar as the disability is concerned, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is granted. A meager amount is granted for transport expenses, extra nourishment and attender charges. Even if the amount granted for pain and suffering and loss of income is marginally higher, it will compensate the lower compensation granted on other heads. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation. Since the accident happened in the year 2003 and the award was passed in the year 2007, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% is confirmed. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is also dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (V Small Causes Court), Chennai. +1cc to Mr.V.Ramesh, Advocate Sr 65591 +1cc to Mr.A.A.Venkatesan, Advocate Sr 65200 PA (CO) km/31.12. CMA No. 3565 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/