IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.3.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.782 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Salem. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. Angamuthu. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 12.7.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.92 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3), Namakkal. For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 12.7.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.92 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3), Namakkal. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 17.9.2003. The injured claimant Angamuthu, aged 52 years, an auto driver, was travelling in a Maruthi Omni Car. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the Maruthi Omni car. In that accident, the said Angamuthu suffered grievous injury to his head and eye and injuries all over his body. She took treatment as inpatient at Surya Hospital, Rasipuram. He filed a claim for compensation in a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injury suffered in the accident. 3. Before the Tribunal, the claim on hand was adjudicated along with three other claims. In support of the claim on hand, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.2. Dr.C.Natarajan was examined as P.W.5. Exs.A-1 to A-26 were marked, the relevant documents are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the FIR dated 17.9.2003, Ex.A-2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 18.9.2003, Ex.A-4 is the charge sheet dated 10.2.2004, Ex.A-8 is the wound certificate dated 3.10.2003, Ex.A-10 series are the medical receipts. Mr.Ravi, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, the respondent before the Tribunal was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 4. The Tribunal discussed the negligence and fixed it on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus based on F.I.R. Ex.A-1. There is no material to controvert the same. The evidence of R.W.1 did not appeal to the Tribunal on merits stating that if he drove the vehicle slowly and cautiously, he could have avoided the accident and there is no need to hit the tree. This finding is logical and acceptable. 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 assessing the disability at 15%, granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:- Sl.N o. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Permanent disability assessed at 15% Rs.15,000/- 2 Medical expenses as per Ex.A-10 Rs.11,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.N o. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 3 Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- 4 Transport expenses and extra nourishment expenses. Rs. 5,000/- 5 Loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence Rs.12,000/- 6 Future loss of income Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.68,000/- 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the sum of Rs.20,000/- granted towards future loss of income is not correct. 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 17.9.2003. The injured claimant was 52 years old at the time of accident. He is an auto driver. P.W.2 doctor stated that the injured suffered one serious injuries and two simple injuries. The doctor assessed the disability at 15%. (ii) The sum of Rs.11,000/- granted towards medical expenses is based on medical bills and the same is confirmed. (iii) Claimant took treatment in the hospital. No amount is granted towards attender charges. (iv) The sum of Rs.5,000/- granted towards transport charges and extra nourishment expenses which is very very low. (v) The sum of Rs.5,000/- granted towards pain and suffering is very meagre. (vi) Considering the above aspects, the sum of Rs.20,000/- granted towards future loss of income, can be adjusted on the other heads as above. (vii) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.68,000/- 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 2003 and the award is of the year 2005. 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 The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Namakkal. 1 CC To Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran , Advocate, SR NO.10588 C.M.A.No.782 of 2009 ck(co) pmk/7.6.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/