?IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS %DATED: 15/12/2008 *CORAM Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR +CMA.197 of 2006 #Tamil Nadu State Transport corpn $Lalalajapathi !FOR PETITIONER : Mr.V.Vasanthakumar ^FOR RESPONDENT : S.Nirmal :ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.12. 2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.197 of 2006 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corportion Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director, Vellore. .. Appellant Vs. 1. Lalalajapathi 2. M.Balu,driver, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ltd., Krishna Nagar,Vellore. (Given up) .. Respondents . . . Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 28.07.2005 made in M.C.O.P No.99 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Additional District and Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court ), Vellore . . . For Appellant : Mr.V.Vasanthakumar For respondents : Mr. S.Nirmal (R1) R.2 given up. . . . J U D G M E N T The State Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 28.07.2005 made in M.C.O.P No.99 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Additional District and Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court ), Vellore. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 16.07.2002. The injured claimant Lala Lajapathy, aged about 32 years, engaged in chemical business was travelling as a passenger in the appellant Transport Corporation bus from Bangalore to Vellore on 16.07.2002. The bus hit a stationary lorry, which was parked without the danger light. In that accident, the said Lala lajapathy who was travelling as a passenger suffered fracture of the thigh bones and fracture of both legs. He was treated as Christian medical College at Vellore for a period of two months. He claims a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. 3. In support of the claim, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.Shanmugasundaram was examined as P.W.2. Documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11. Ex.P.1 is the copy of First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the wound Certificate. Ex.P.3 is the Discharge summary. Ex.P.4 is the copy of the order made in M.C.O.P.No.713/2002. Ex.P.5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Ex.P.6 is the Medical Bills. Ex.P.7 is the Educational Certificate. Ex.P.8 is the R.C.Book and permit relating to the appellant transport Corporation bus. Ex.P.9 is the Driving licence. Ex.P.10 is the Disability Certificate of the claimant. Ex.P.11 is the X.ray On the side of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal, the driver of the appellant bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence was let on his side. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus and the and the liability fixed on the appellant Corporation to compensate the claimants is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant and as such, the same is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised in this appeal by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. According to the appellant, the injured claimant suffered disability to an extent of 35% as per the doctor and it is reduced to 30% by the Tribunal. He was treated in C.M.C. Hospital at Vellore for two months. The nature of injury and the disability assessed at 30% by the Tribunal is not seriously disputed. However, in appeal, the dispute is that without any discussion or reason, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for disability assessed at 35%. It is stated that the amount has been granted arbitrarily and capriciously. The other amounts granted by the Tribunal are not disputed. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts with 7.5% interest. Sl.N0. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 For disability at 35% Rs. 2, 50,000/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- 3. Transport expenses, for Medical treatment & Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- 4. Medical Expenses Rs. 20,323/- Total Rs 3,05,323/- 6. Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, stated that though the quantum of compensation for the disability assessed at 35% appears to be on the higher side, no amount has been granted for transport expenses, attendant charges, and loss of income during the period of treatment, considering the long period of hospitalisation and the same has to be considered. 7. The disability assessed at 35% is not in dispute. There is no finding by the Tribunal that consequent to the injury, the disability would be continuing for the rest of the life time of the injured claimant. When that is the case, the Tribunal without any discussion has granted Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for loss of earning capacity based on disability. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, is an error and without any just and reasonable cause the Tribunal granted Rs.2,50,000-/- for the disability assessed at 35% by the Doctor. Since the entire order of the Tribunal is a non-speaking order and without considering the relevant material, the order of the Tribunal granting Rs.2,50,000/- for the disability assessed at 35% is set aside. The claimant, however, is entitled to just compensation for the disability assessed at 35% and for the other heads which have been omitted. The Award of the Tribunal is modified as follows: Sl.N0. Head Amount granted by this Court 1 For disability at 35% Rs. 50,000/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs. 20,000/- 4. Loss of income for three months Rs. 10,000/- 5. Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- 6. Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/- 7. Transport Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs 1,25,000/- The interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5% p.a stands confirmed as the accident in this case happened in the year 2002 and the award was passed in the year 2005. 8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part as follows: i. The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,25,000/- from Rs.3,05,323/-. R.SUDHAKAR,J. PAL ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5 % stands confirmed. iii) It is stated that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 21.01.2006, the entire award amount has been deposited and 50% of the same is withdrawn by the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to withdraw the excess amount, after settling the claimant as per the order of this Court. The respondent - claimant prays for withdrawal of the balance amount and the same is allowed. iv. There will be no order as to costs. Index:No Internet:yes 15.12.2008 PAL To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore. CMA No. 197 of 2006 DT.15.12.2008