IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3490 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Opposite to T.V.S., Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Minor Nagappan, 2.V.A.Rajan. (Minor first respondent is represented by his father Mr.Kathirvel) ... Respondents/Petitioner and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 7.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.215 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Chengalpattu. For appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar ----- JUDGMENT The National Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 7.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.215 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Chengalpattu. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 9.4.2005. The injured claimant minor Nagappan, aged 16 years, working in a refreshment stall, was walking on the M.G.R. Salai at Maraimalainagar. He was hit by a van driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and insured with the appellant. In that accident, the minor claimant suffered serious injures to the head and other parts of body. He was initially treated at S.R.M. Hospital, Pothery and thereafter referred to Government General Hospital, Chennai. Surgical procedures were done to his head. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ father of the minor claimant has filed the claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for the grievous injuries suffered by his son. 3. In support of the claim, the employer of the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Doctor Srinivasan was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-7 were filed, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.P-1 is the copy of FIR dated 12.4.2005, Exs.P-2 and P-3 are the accident register extracts, Ex.P-4 is the casualty opinion form, Ex.P-5 is the discharge summary, Ex.P-6 is the scan report and Ex.P-7 is the disability certificate No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of appellant insurance company, the second respondent before the Tribunal. 4. P.W.1, the employer of the injured claimant has stated that the injured was working under him in a mobile tiffin shop at Maraimalai Nagar. He narrated the nature of accident. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the van, who caused the accident and the liability of the appellant insurance company to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the appellant's counsel in this appeal is on the quantum of compensation. 6. The Tribunal decided the issue relating to compensation from paragraphs 6 onwards in answer to point No.2. P.W.1, the employer stated that after the accident he had taken the injured boy Nagappan to SRM Hospital for treatment where 32 stitches were done. Thereafter, he was referred to Government General Hospital, Chennai, where the said Nagappan was taking treatment for more than 1-1/2 months. He also stated that the claimant was paid Rs.70/- per day and that the claimant was not attending work after the accident. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant minor Nagappan suffered bone fracture on the head. There are blood clots, which were removed after surgery. The claimant is suffering from frequent head-ache and he is not able to work continuously and is suffering from memory loss. The disability has been assessed at 40% under Ex.P-7. The Tribunal relying upon the judgment in the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division II Ltd., Trichy – vs. - S.Kannappan reported in 2007(2) TN MAC granted Rs.2,000/- per 1% disability. Considering the age, occupation, nature of injury and the disability assessed, the Tribunal granted compensation as follows with 7.5% interest:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Disability assessed at 40% Rs. 80,000/- 2 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- 3 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- 4 Loss of earning during the period of treatment Rs. 10,000/- 5 Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 1,20,000/- 7. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that for the disability assessed at 40%, the sum of Rs.80,000/- granted is on the higher side and therefore, the compensation should be reduced. 8. This court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal by way of reduction for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 9.4.2005. The injured claimant is a 16 years old boy working in a refreshment stall. He suffered grievous injuries to his head and has been treated for more than 1-1/2 months in two hospitals. After treatment, naturally the injured would have taken rest for 3 to 5 months at home. Even after recovery as per the evidence of doctor P.W.2, the capacity to work as before is very much affected. (ii) Considering the long period of treatment, the grievous injuries suffered in his head and the hospital procedure resulting in surgical to remove all blood clots and 32 stitches, the claimant is entitled to higher compensation towards pain and suffering and for extra nourishment. (iii) The fact that the injured has been taken to two hospitals and the parents have to take care of him while he was in hospitals has to be considered. Sufficient compensation has to be granted under transport expenses. No amount has been granted for attender charges. It is also unfortunate that no amount was claimed for medical treatment taken at private hospital at the initial stage. (iv) Even if the sum of Rs.80,000/- granted for 40% disability is higher, considering the nature of injury, for the 40% disability a sum of Rs.60,000/- can be granted. The balance amount of Rs.20,000/- can be adjusted on the head pain and suffering, extra nourishment, transportation expenses, attender charges and the like. (v) Considering all these aspects, this Court is unable to find any good reason to reduce the quantum of compensation as also the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and the award was passed in the year 2008. 9. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1.Principal Subordinate Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chengalpattu. 1 cc To Mr.S.Arun Kumar, Advocate, SR.63540 C.M.A.No.3490 of 2008 RSM(CO) SRA(24/11/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/