IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.3.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.733 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Villupuram Ltd., Villupuram. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. K.Thanusu. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 11.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.398 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(II Additional Sub Court), Villupuram. For appellant : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 11.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.398 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court), Villupuram. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 24.4.2005. The injured claimant K.Thanusu, aged 48 years, a house-wife, was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, the bus hit a tree. In that accident, the said Thanusu suffered nasal bone fracture and grievous injuries all over her body. She had treatment first at Government General Hospital in Villupuram and then at private hospital. She filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injury suffered in the accident. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Ravindran was examined as P.W.2. One R.Anbazhagan, was examined as P.W.3. But there is no mention/discussion about the evidence of P.W.3, in the order of the Tribunal. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the FIR, Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate, Ex.A-3 is the vehicle registration book. Ex.A-4 is the driving licence, Ex.A-5 is the photocopy of permit book, Ex.A-6 is the disability certificate and Ex.A-7 is the X-Ray. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal. But in paragraph 5 it is stated that the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. 4. The Tribunal discussed the negligence based on evidence on record which is not seriously disputed and fixed it on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus. The F.I.R. Ex.A-1 supports the case of rash and negligent driving. There is no material to controvert the same. The evidence of R.W.1 did not appeal to the Tribunal on merits. Therefore, the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, as responsible for the accident and the injury and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation, is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same is confirmed. The only serious contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence of the injured claimant and that of the doctor supported by medical records, the period of hospitalisation, the disability certificate Ex.A-6 assessing the disability at 25%, which is reduced to 15% granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Permanent disability Rs.30,000/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- 3 Transport expenses, medical expenses, extra nourishment expenses, damage to clothes, etc. Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.55,000/- 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the sum of Rs.30,000/- granted for 15% disability is excessive. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. 7. On going through the award of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation on the above said contention for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 24.4.2005. The injured claimant was 48 years old at the time of accident. She was a housewife. P.W.2 doctor stated that since the nasal bone is mal united, there is a disfigurement. The doctor assessed the disability at 25%. But without any reason, the Tribunal reduced the disability to 15%. (ii) It is stated that the injured claimant took treatment in Government General Hospital, and then private hospital. No compensation was granted towards attender charges and towards facial disfigurement. (iii) The sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards transport, medical, extra nourishment, damage to clothes are very low considering the nature of injury. (iv) Considering the above aspects, the sum of Rs.30,000/- granted towards disability, which according to the appellant is marginally high. It can be adjusted on the other heads as above. (v) The sum of Rs.15,000/- granted towards pain and suffering is reasonable and the same is confirmed. (vi) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.55,000/- is reasonable and does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and the award is of the year 2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ts To 1) The Second Additional Subordinate Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Villupuram. 1 cc to Mr.S.S. Swaminathan, Advocate, SR. 10405 C.M.A.No.733 of 2009 SSR (CO) kk 18/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/