IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.11.2008 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH C.M.A.No.2387 of 2003 A.Kaaliammal ... Appellant/Petitioner .. Vs .. 1.Rokkappan 2.N.Palanisamy 3.The New India Assurance Company Ltd., No.184, Coimbatore Main Road, Annur, Coimbatore. ... Respondents/ Respondents (Respondents 1 and 2 are given up) Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2003 made in M.C.O.P.No.655 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Thiruppur. For Appellant : Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram For RR-1 and 2 : Given up For R-3 : Mr.J.Michael Viswasam - - - - - JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore at Thiruppur in M.C.O.P.No.655 of 1997 dated 14.02.2003. 2. The case of the claimant is as follows:- On 11.03.1997 at about 10.30 a.m. the injured/claimant was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ walking along Karumathampatti Nall road to Annur road to her residence. When she was near Electricity office on the said road, a lorry bearing registration No.TDQ 9789 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the injured/claimant and run over her right leg causing extensive injuries on her right leg and other parts of the body. Immediately, she was taken to Coimbatore and was admitted in Sheela hospital. In spite of best treatment, the doctors could not set right the injuries caused to her on her right leg. Hence, the injured/claimant has claimed a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the said accident. 3. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred the above appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Before the learned trial Judge, on behalf of the claimant, the claimant herself was examined as P.W.1 and Doctors viz., S.J.P.Gnanaraj and Rajapandian were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.A.1 to 160 were marked and Ex.C.1 was also marked. On the side of the respondents, one Senniappan was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. 5. Heard both the learned counsel for the appellant and the third respondent-insurance company. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit in his argument that the lower Court had come to the conclusion of fixing the responsibility for causing the accident against the first respondent and had fastened the liability against the second and third respondents jointly and severally, but had wrongly come to a conclusion that the amputation, which had taken place on 19.03.1997 was not due to the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in the accident, which took place on 11.03.1997. He would further submit that the lower Court had not considered the oral and documentary evidence produced in abundant on the side of the claimant to prove the amputation and the treatment taken by the claimant in Sheela hospital at Coimbatore and the reason assigned by the lower Court is flimsy and not sustainable. He would further submit that the evidence of the Doctors and the medical evidence would certainly prove that the claimant sustained injuries and as a result of those injuries, her right leg was amputated and therefore, she is entitled for the compensation for permanent disability, for medical expenditure and on other heads. Moreover, he would submit in his argument that the award of compensation to the claimant at Rs.15,000/- for pain and sufferings https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is only a pittance and the same was not decided by the lower Court on the basis of evidence placed before it. Moreover, he would request the Court that the mixing of some other medical bills along with the total medical bills, which are numbering about 133 was not willful or intentional but, purely due to inadvertence of the clerical staff of the claimant's counsel and for that the claimant should not be penalized by refusing the whole expenditure for treatment. He would further submit that the lower Court should have rejected the unconnected medical bills alone and to allow the remaining medical bills and award compensation on the basis of available medical bills. The claimant would be the sufferer both in the accident as well as by the order of lower Court and therefore, the order passed by the lower Court may be modified and justifiable compensation may be awarded to the claimant and thus, the appeal may be allowed. 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent/insurance company would submit in his argument that the lower Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the permanent disability was not the result of injuries sustained in the accident and it should have been manipulated by the claimant for the purpose of claiming higher compensation. He would further argue that the claimant had produced certain fake bills and therefore, the non reliability bestowed by the lower Court against all the medical bills is also correct and the compensation awarded for pain and sufferings is the just and correct compensation and therefore, there is no necessity for revising or modifying the award passed by the lower Court. 8. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides. On a careful perusal of the judgment of the lower Court, it had come to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- only out of the total claim of Rs.5,00,000/- holding that the permanent disability and other medical expenditure were not proved by the claimant. The reason stated by the lower Court was that the claimant was admitted in 'Sheela hospital, Coimbatore' on the date of accident and the wound certificate produced on the side of the claimant as Ex.A.4 shows only two simple injuries and those injuries would not have resulted an amputation of right leg of the claimant in the same hospital and therefore, it did not rely upon the case of the claimant. Similarly, it had also come to the conclusion that the medical bills produced by the claimant for the expenditure for treatment could not be relied upon as those bills are suspicious in nature since Exs.A.72 to A.80 would depict the name of the patient as one Ravi, Kumarasamy, Jeganathan, Loganathan, Radhakrishnan, Arunachalam, Srinivasan, Vijayakumar and Dhanraj and therefore, the said documents cannot be relied upon and the claimant had attempted to cheat the Court and therefore, the claimant was not entitled for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ entire expenditure shown in the Exs.A.18 to A.159. Now we have to see whether the finding of the lower Court is based upon evidence or was it decided by the lower Court sheerly on perverse. 9. The lower Court, after going through the First Information Report, Charge Sheet, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report, Wound Certificate, Rough Sketch and the Register of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur (Exs.A.1 to A.6), had come to the conclusion that the accident had happened purely on the rash and negligence of the first respondent/driver of the vehicle and the claimant had sustained injuries in the said accident. It was also decided by the lower Court that the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- for pain and sufferings arising out of the injuries sustained by her in the accident. There is no dispute that the claimant was admitted in the Sheela hospital, Coimbatore. The accident had happened on 11.03.1997 and the claimant was admitted on the same day and the injuries were noted by the Doctor of the hospital on the same day itself and she was given treatment in the said hospital. The discharge summary is produced as Ex.A.17. The case sheet, which would show the treatment given by the Doctors of the Sheela hospital, was produced as Ex.C.1. 10. The discharge summary Ex.A.17 would go to show that the claimant was admitted in the Sheela hospital, Coimbatore on 11.03.1997 and was discharged on 21.05.1997. Thereafter, she was again admitted in the same hospital on 13.11.1997 and discharged on 20.11.1997. The said document even though was admitted with the objection, subsequently the Doctor of Sheela hospital examined as P.W.3 had spoken to the effect and proved the said document Ex.A.17. Ex.A.17 would prove that the right leg of the claimant was amputated in pursuance of the treatment given to the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The reading of the nature of diagnosis in the said document, viz., crush injury on the right lower limb would correspond to the second injury mentioned in the wound certificate Ex.A.4. Therefore, the suspicion grown by the lower Court about the nexus in between amputation and the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident is without any rhyme or reason. 11. At this juncture, it has to be taken note of from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" cannot be applied in India for the reasons mentioned therein. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 7 SCC 749 (Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (SMT) Vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and another) would guide us to the said circumstance. The relevant passages are as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "25. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Falsity of a particular material witness or a material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called" a mandatory rule of evidence" 26. The doctrine is a dangerous one especially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because the witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate an exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment." On a careful understanding of the aforesaid dictum it would show that merely because the witness telling false evidence on one part, the entire evidence cannot be rejected. 12. The proceedings before the lower Court was purely of summary nature. However, the Trial Court ought to have observed the procedures as contemplated under law. The discretion of a Court should have exercised judicially. Merely because the medical bills produced by the claimant under Exs.A.72 to A.80 are not in connection with the claimant, it cannot be taken that the entire case of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claimant is wrong when especially, abundant evidence are available for the purpose of proving the nexus of injuries with the amputation. P.W.3 the Doctor, was working in the Sheela hospital, Coimbatore, where the claimant had taken treatment. He had spoken about the records belonging to the said hospital and proved the same. There may not be any personal interest for the said Doctor to sail along with the claimant for the purpose of making the injuries to be the cause for the amputation of right leg of the claimant. The Courts must be strict in observing the procedure of law, but at the same time, permit the swing to reach judicial discretion, when it finds the facts put forth by the claimant are proved through the uninterested and responsible witnesses. The Court should have accepted such evidence and it cannot introduce its personal view against the proved facts. The duty of the Court is just like sifting chaff from the grain and to take the correct proved facts from out of the evidence adduced before it. The anguish of the Court below reflected in the denial of compensation for permanent disability of the claimant, which had resulted in deeming justice, when especially the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident was accepted by the lower Court. In these circumstances, this Court accepts the evidence produced by the claimant before the lower Court that the amputation was done to her in consequence of the injuries sustained by her in the accident and therefore, she is entitled to get compensation for the permanent disability certified to her. 13. Accordingly, when we go through the injuries sustained by the claimant, those two injuries both in right lower leg and the injuries sustained at the middle of her right leg are crush injuries and therefore, those injuries should have been considered as grievous injuries. The lower Court had awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and sufferings. The said assessment of compensation is quite correct. When we go for assessment of compensation for the permanent disability caused to the claimant, the Doctor, who certified the permanent disability, was examined as P.W.2. The permanent disability certificate is produced as Ex.A.160, which would go to show that the claimant had sustained permanent disability of 70% due to amputation of her right leg, in consequence of the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The Doctor, who has assessed the permanent disability, was examined as P.W.2. I have also gone through the photographs of the claimant taken after the surgery in Exs.A.7 to A.11, which would show that right leg of the claimant was amputated above her knee. Therefore, the permanent disability as certified by the Doctor P.W.2 is acceptable. 14. When we calculate the compensation for permanent disability, we have to go through the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the learned counsel for the claimant, in 2001 ACJ 1735 (Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others) in support of his claim. The relevant portion relied upon by the claimant's counsel would run as follows:- "10.So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000 per annum in cases of some and Rs.10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3,000 per month and Rs.36,000 per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 and 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore, should be re- calculated, taking the value of the services rendered per annum to be Rs.36,000 and thereafter applying the multiplier, as has been applied already and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs.50,000 instead of Rs.25,000 given under the report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of the services rendered has been taken at Rs.10,000 per annum and the multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the value of services rendered at Rs.10,000 per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs.20,000 per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be re-determined taking the value of services rendered at Rs.20,000 per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter adding Rs.50,000 towards the conventional figure." 15. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid judgment, we could see that the earnings of the housewives, who are rendering domestic https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ services, could have been assessed at Rs.36,000/- per annum and suitable multiplier could have been used and the compensation be awarded apart from Rs.50,000/- as conventional amount. 16. So far as this case is concerned, the claimant was conducting a mutton stall and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. There was no document produced before the lower Court to prove the avocation of the claimant. Since the claimant is aged about 43 years, the annual income of the claimant could be fixed at Rs.36,000/- as per the guidance given in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra. As the multiplier method has to be followed for the purpose of ascertainment of the loss of income, multiplier which could be used for the claimant as per the second schedule is 15. 17. The learned counsel for the claimant had also cited a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 2008(1) TN MAC 29 (Del.) Rahul Gupta and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and others) in support of his case and submitted that deduction of 1/3 from the annual income towards personal expenses, from the estimated value of services of housewives need not be done as it is purely a value of service estimated for the purpose of compensation. The principle laid down in the said judgment is squarely applicable to this case and it is also adoptable for the purpose of calculating compensation. When we calculate the compensation for total disability, it comes to Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 15 = 5,40,000/-). The percentage of disability awarded to the claimant was 70% and when compensation for 70% is calculated, it comes to Rs.3,78,000/-. Considering the medical expenditure, after leaving the amounts of bill, which are not connected with the claimant's treatment viz., Exs.A.72 to A.80, the balance amount spent by the claimant could be ascertained from Exs.A.18 to 71 and A.81 to 159, which are numbering about 133. The transport charges for the hospital, the attendant charges while taking treatment and for taking extra nourishment were not awarded by the lower Court. Regarding those claims, this Court is of the considered view that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- for transport charges, Rs.5,000/- for attendant charges and Rs.7,000/- for extra nourishment could be awarded. Since the claimant has to live her remaining part of life with the amputated right leg and she has to depend upon others for her day today action also. For that purpose, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards the loss of amenities. Therefore, on a over all computation of the compensation, we could ascertain that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- whereas the lower Court had awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- only towards compensation, which is a meagre sum. The lower Court had awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, the enhanced compensation will carry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs and the appellant/claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- payable by the third respondent with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar jrl To 1.The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore at Thiruppur. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc o Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram, Advocate Sr 62525 +1cc to Mr.J.Michael Viswasam, Advocate Sr 62340 KA(CO) km/13.2. C.M.A.NO.2387 of 2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/