IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.1. 2009 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.4136 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The National Insurance Company Ltd., No.751 Anna Salai, Chennai.2. .. Appellant/2nd respondent Vs. 1. P. Paramanantham 2. P. Senthilkumar .. Respondents/petitioner/ I respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 11-2-2008 made in M.C.O.P No.1946 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai. For Appellant : Mr. T.M.Venkataraman For respondent : Mr. K. Palanivel – R1 J U D G M E N T The national insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 11-2-2008 made in M.C.O.P No.1946 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai. 2. The first respondent/ claimant appears through counsel. At the request of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal finally on merits. 3. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 2.10.2002 at 15.00 hours. The injured claimant Paramanantham was riding a by-cycle and was proceeding from Sirkali to his village. He was hit by a lorry bearing registration No. TN- 49-E-6899 insured with the appellant. In that accident, he suffered grievous injuries resulting in amputation of the right leg below thigh. The injured claimant initially took treatment in Sirkali Hospital and then at Government Royapettah Hospital as inpatient for four months and he claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. In support of the claim, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and 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 photo. Ex.P3 is the F.I.R. Ex.P4 is the disability certificate. Ex.P5 is the treatment record. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/ 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. 5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence and the disability assessed at 70% under Ex.P4 disability certificate, the Tribunal by adopting multiplier method granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income due to disability at 70% Rs.4,36,800/- 2 Transport to Hospital Rs. 5,000/- 3 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- 4 Damage to articles Rs. 2,000/- 5 Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- 6 Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 50,000/- 7 Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- 8 Loss of income during treatment for 4 months Rs. 16,000/- 9 Loss of expectation of life Rs. 50,000/- 10 Miscellaneous expenses Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs.6,21,800/- 6. In appeal, it is contended that the sum of Rs.50,000/- granted towards loss of expectation of life is not justified since substantial amount has been granted for loss of earning power due to amputation of right leg. Further, the higher compensation of Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.50,000/- granted for pain, shock and suffering is excessive and has to be reduced. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant stated that the injured claimant was a farm coolie at the time of accident and hence, the amputation of leg would affect his life totally. Therefore, the over all compensation on the whole is justified. 8. Having considered the plea as above and the finding of the Tribunal, it is clear that for the grievous injuries resulting in amputation of right leg and considering the period of treatment taken, the disability assessed at 70% by the Doctor, the Tribunal by adopting multiplier method, granted a sum of Rs.4,36,800/- towards loss of earning power due to the disability. This is acceptable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A sum of Rs.50,000/- was granted for loss of amenities separately and it can be justified because of amputation. The amount granted for medical expenses, damage to article, extra nourishment, transport to hospitals and loss of income during treatment is not disputed. The further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal granted exorbitant amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of expectation of life is correct as the adequate compensation has been granted for loss of earning power based on the disability and therefore, the said sum of Rs.50,000/- granted for loss of expectation of life is set aside. The sum of Rs.50,000/- granted towards pain, shock and suffering, though stated to be on the higher side, considering the grievous injury resulting in amputation of leg, period of treatment in two hospitals and meager amount has been granted for transport to hospitals, extra nourishment and damage to cloth, the excess amount granted towards pain and suffering can be adjusted on the heads where the compensation is less. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal stands modified as follows:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of income due to disability at 70% Rs.4,36,800/- Rs.4,36,800/- 2 Transport to Hospital Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 3 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 4 Damage to articles Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 2,000/- 5 Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 6 Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 7 Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 8 Loss of income during treatment for four months Rs. 16,000/- Rs. 16,000/- 9 Loss of expectation of life Rs. 50,000/- -- 10 Miscellaneous expenses Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs.6,21,800/- Rs.5,71,800/- 9. The interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% stands reduced to 7.5% in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 (3) C.T.C. 373 (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. S.Rajapriya). 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i) The award of the Tribunal stands reduced to Rs.5,71,800/- from Rs.6,21,800/-. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% stands reduced to 7.5% p.a. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks time to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of this Court. (iv) There shall be no orders as to costs. (v) Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ra To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai. + 1 CC to Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, Advocate SR.NO.3026 + 1 CC to Mr.K.Palanivel, Advocate SR.NO.2354 CMA No. 4136/2008 KLT(CO) EM/18.2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/