IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.01.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A. No. 949 of 2008 Kasi Kaniammal @ Kasi Kani .. Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. Muniyan 2. Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Express Tamil Nadu Corporation Ltd Pallavan Salai, Chennai .. Respondents/Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.11.2004 made in MCOP No. 419 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge) at Dharapuram. For Appellant : Mr. K.V. Shanmuganathan For Respondents : No appearance for R1 Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi for R2 JUDGMENT The claimant is the appellant in this appeal. The claimant is aggrieved by the grant of an award of Rs.80,000/- granted by the court below in her favour as against Rs.5,00,000/- claimed in the claim petition, for the injuries sustained by her in a road accident on 16.12.1999 2. The facts which gave rise to the claim petition was that on 16.12.1999 when the claimant was traveling in the bus bearing Registration No. TN-01-N-0960 belonging to the respondent/corporation, near Eppothum Vendran, the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner with the result, the bus dashed against a stationary lorry bearing Registration No. TN-69- C- 2217. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained fracture injuries in both her legs, buttocks and other multiple grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in Government Hospital, Tuticorin and subsequently, she was shifted to P.S.G. Hospital, Coimbatore for better treatment. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 50 years, owner of a grocery shop and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, for the injuries sustained by her, she filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Before the court below, the claimant examined herself as PW1 and Dr. Rajasekar as PW2. Ex.P1 to P22 were marked on the side of the claimant. On behalf of the respondents in the claim petition, the first respondent herein namely Muniyan was examined as RW1, but no documents marked. The court below, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant would vehemently contend that the claimant had sustained fracture on her right femur, multiple abrasion in the left leg, fracture in tibia of both bones, abrasion over left cheek and buttocks. The claimant was originally hospitalised in Government Hospital, Tuticorin, later, she was shifted to P.S.G. Hospital, Coimbatore for better treatment and admitted there as in-patient from 17.12.1999 to 23.03.2000. Once again, the claimant was admitted in the hospital from 21.07.2000 to 27.07.2000 and thereafter from 01.11.2000 to 20.11.2000, thus, totally, she was hospitalised for more than four months as in- patient. Apart from this, the claimant had incurred huge medical expenses which are supported by medical bills filed along with the claim petition to the tune of Rs.2,12,251/-, whereas, the court below had disbelieved the version of the claimant on the ground that no Doctor was examined or any person from the hospital, which had issued the medical bills, were examined and that therefore, the medical expenses cannot be granted. Further, before the Court below, PW2/Doctor was examined who certified the disability at 45%, but the court below, without assigning any reason, had reduced the percentage of disability to 20% and awarded a meager compensation. The claimant, being a lady, is unable to walk, stand, sit or squat and the injuries sustained by her are serious in nature. There is no specific reason assigned by the court below for reducing the percentage of disability. Further, the court below, without any valid reasons, had disbelieved the medical bills filed by the claimant. In any event, the award of Rs.80,000/- granted by the court below is grossly unreasonable and meager and prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/ corporation would contend that the court below rightly rejected the medical bills filed by the claimant because even though the claimant alleged to have taken major treatment in a particular hospital, neither the Doctor nor any one concerned with the issuance of the medical bills have been examined. Mere production of the medical bills cannot enure to the benefit of the claimant to get recovery or reimbursement of the medical bills. Furthermore, the Doctor/PW2 had exaggerated the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and issued disability certificate assessing the disability at 45%, therefore, the court below is justified in reducing the percentage of disability. In any view of the matter, the grant of Rs.80,000/- for the claimant, who was 50 years old lady, is grossly sufficient and reasonable and she prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the claimant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Heard both sides. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to get higher compensation as prayed for by her. 7. The transport corporation admits the date, time and manner in which the accident took place as also the liability. This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded in her favour by the court below. 8. The claimant was a passenger in the bus belonging to the transport corporation. The bus met with an accident due to which the claimant sustained injuries. Inasmuch as the claimant questions the quantum of compensation, the nature of injuries sustained by her, treatment taken and continued suffering of the claimant, if any, has to be seen. 9. The claimant/appellant was 50 years old lady at the time of accident. She claims to have owned a grocery shop out of which she earns her livelihood. The claimant sustained multiple fracture injury on the right femur and tibia. As per Ex.P13, wound certificate; Ex.P5, discharge summary, Ex.P6, discharge summary and Ex.P14, discharge summary, coupled with the evidence of the Doctor, who has given Ex.P17, disability certificate, it is clear that the claimant had sustained fracture injury in both her legs. The Doctor, in Ex.P17, disability certificate had stated that the claimant had sustained 25% disability in her right hip and 20% in the right leg. This would clearly prove the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. It is also clear that the claimant was hospitalised for more than four months on three different spells. The period of hospitalisation for more than four months for a lady, at the age of 50 years, would clearly reveal the extraordinary pain and suffering and ordeal she had undergone as an inpatient. 10. The court below disbelieved the medical bills produced by the claimant on the ground that the Doctors from the hospital, from where the claimant had obtained the medical bills, have not been examined. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the court below had seen the claimant in person when she appeared before the court below for adducing evidence. The Doctor also in his evidence stated that the claimant could not walk fast, unable to sit or squat for a long time and even when she walks, she limp. Further, there is a reduction in the leg to the extent of 2.5 cm besides there is a malunion of the left leg. When this being the nature of injury, the Doctor/PW2 is justified in assessing the disability of the claimant at 45% and the court below ought not to have reduced the percentage of disability by stating that the Doctor's assessment of disability is exaggerated. Further, PW1 herself was examined and she had given a clear narration of the sufferings she is undergoing due to the accident. Therefore, there is no reason for the court below to disbelieve the percentage of disability given by the Doctor and therefore, the findings of the court below to the extent of reducing the disability assessed by the Doctor is incorrect and invalid. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. The Court below pointed out that there is a deficiency in the first information report. The complaint was given by the husband of the claimant soon after the accident. In the complaint, the husband had only stated that her wife/claimant herein met with an accident and sustained injuries. It is not stated in the complaint as to whether the injuries sustained by the claimant are grievous in nature or not. A normal prudent man cannot assess the nature and extent of injuries immediately after the accident. Only after medical examination, especially after taking x-ray and based on the report of the medical experts, the exact nature of injuries can come to light. In this case, the accident took place at Tuticorin and immediately after giving first aid treatment to the claimant at the Government Hospital, she was shifted to P.S.G. Hospital at Coimbatore. Therefore, the discrepancy in the first information report cannot be taken to put against the claimant. Moreover, there is no delay in giving the complaint, based on which the first information report came to be registered, therefore,it cannot be gain said that in the first information report, the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant had not been mentioned and therefore the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant are exaggerated. It is also the version of PW1/claimant that at the time of giving the complaint by her husband, she was not conscious enough and so the exact injury could not be mentioned in the complaint given to the police. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the court below that because of non-disclosure of the nature of the injuries in the complaint, based on which the first information report came to be filed, the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant are exaggerated, cannot be accepted. A cumulative reading of the evidence of the Doctor and the claimant would indicate clearly the nature of injuries, especially the fracture injury sustained by the claimant. Therefore also, the disability assessed by the Doctor at 45% is valid and proper. Therefore, if 45% of disability is taken, as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court to grant a maximum sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability, the claimant is entitled to Rs.90,000/- (Rs.2,000 X 45) towards permanent disability, which will be the fair and reasonable compensation. 12. For pain and suffering, the court below had granted Rs.15,000/-, which in my view is meager taking into consideration the fracture injuries sustained by the claimant at the age of 50 years. Therefore, the award under this head is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. 13. As far as medical bills are concerned, the court below disbelieved the same on the ground that no person connected with the medical bills have been examined. The claimant had produced medical bills for the medical expenses incurred by her at two or more hospitals. Merely because no one connected with the medical bills are examined, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire medical bills especially when there is cogent other evidences available. The claimant had produced medical bills to the tune of Rs.66,756/- under Ex.P6 along with the vouchers and hospital bills. Ex.P7 series are also medical bills. When these bills corresponds to the date of admission and date of discharge of the claimant from the hospital, there is no reason for the court below to disbelieve the same. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned counsel for the claimant/appellant also states that even though in the claim petition the claimant claimed Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses, in fact, she incurred more amount towards her medical expenses. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the claim made by the claimant for medical expenses in toto. Consequently, the claimant is entitled to medical expenses of Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by her. 14. The court below awarded Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and transportation charges, which is meager taking into consideration the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the claimant, especially in her legs. Therefore, the amount awarded under these heads are liable to be enhanced and accordingly, the claimant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- each, totaling Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and transportation charges. 15. In the result, the claimant is entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs.2,70,000/- as compensation as against Rs.80,000/- awarded by the court below in her favour, as mentioned below:- Disability : Rs. 90,000.00 Pain and Suffering : Rs. 20,000.00 Medical Expenses : Rs. 1,50,000.00 Extra Nourishment : Rs. 5,000.00 Transportation charges : Rs. 5,000.00 --------------------- Rs. 2,70,000.00 --------------------- 16. In the result, the appeal preferred by the claimant is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.2,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. No costs. 17. It is stated that the transport corporation had deposited the entire award amount. In view of the enhancement of the compensation amount, the transport corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the compensation amount with accrued interest. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rsh To 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Sub Judge, Dharapuram https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras CMA No.949 of 2008 SGL (CO) RH (31.5.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/