1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI C.M.A.(MD)No.372 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division-2, Tirunelveli. ... Appellant/ Respondent Vs. Gurusamy ... Respondent/ Petitioner PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 02.12.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.1218 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli. For appellant : Mr.M.Prakash For respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil * * * JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the respondent/State Transport Corporation against the award of compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- in favour of the respondent claimant for the injury sustained by him in the accident occurred at 04.30 p.m. on 18.06.2007, while he was travelling in the State Transport Corporation bus from Sivagiri to Edayankulam, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 2.The date, time, place and manner of the accident, as mentioned above, the nature and number of injuries sustained, nature and period of treatment undergone, nature and permanent disability sustained and the amount of pain suffered by the injured are not so seriously disputed. 3.In this case, the appellant/Transport Corporation has seriously questioned the correctness of the award on two grounds; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 a) As the injured has stretched his hands outside the window thereby contributed to the cause of injury, he is guilty of contributory negligence. b) The amount of compensation awarded for permanent disability, pain and suffering, medical attendant, extra nourishment and transportation are excessive. 4.Regarding the first ground, it is but well accepted that the passengers travelling in long journey buses by stretching their hands outside the window cannot be held to have contributed to the cause of the accident resulting in injury to the passenger concerned. As admittedly the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the question of fixing any liability upon the passenger for the so called act committed by him does not at all raise. 5.Regarding the quantum of the compensation, the petitioner has, in order to prove the nature of the injury sustained by him, the treatment given to him, the extent of permanent disability sustained by him, impact of the same upon his day today activities, examined himself and one Doctor Ramaguru who examined and tested him and issued Ex.P9, disability certificate as PW1 and PW2 and has produced Ex.P2, Accident Register, Ex.P3, discharge summary issued by the Hospital, Exs.P8 & P10 X-rays and Ex.P9, disability certificate. 6.The Tribunal has fixed the permanent disability of the injured aged about 54 years and awarded compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- under the following headings: Permanent disability Rs.1,60,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- Transport charges, Medical attendance & Nourishment Rs. 20,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- -------------- Rs.2,10,000/- -------------- 7.Though the learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the quantum of compensation awarded under all the headings as excessive, this court is not inclined to accept the award of pain and suffering, medical expenses, medical attendant charges, transport expenses and extra nourishment. Regarding the compensation awarded for permanent disability at Rs.2,000/- per percentage, the same is, considering the age of the injured, certainly on higher side and the same can be modified at Rs.1,500/- per percentage. Thus the compensation for permanent disability comes to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.1,500 x 80 = Rs.1,20,000/-). However, this Court is inclined award reasonable sum for the loss of joy and amenities in life due to the permanent disability sustained by the injured and the same can be fixed at Rs.40.000/-. Thus, for the discussions held above, the award of compensation is confirmed but on different headings. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the compensation awarded by the tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1218 of 2007 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court NO.II, Tirunelveli +One cc to Mr.M.Prakash, Advocate, SR.No.21542 +One CC to Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocate, SR.No.21402 gcg rl/4c – 11.10.2011 C.M.A.(MD)No.372 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 01.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/