IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.3.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.591 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2 (Cause title is accepted vide order dated 14.11.2005 passed in C.M.P.No.17832 of 2005) ... Appellant/1st Respondent vs. 1.A.R.Ahamed, 2.Dhanasekaran, 3.Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai-2, represented by its Managing Director. (R2 is unnecessary party, hence given up) ... Respondents/Petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 28.6.2004 passed in M.C.O.P.No.247 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Chengalpattu. For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT The Metropolitan Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 28.6.2004 passed in M.C.O.P.No.247 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Chengalpattu. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 4.7.1995. The injured claimant A.R.Ahamed, aged 65 years, working as a clerk in private company after retirement, was travelling in the appellant transport corporation bus. The bus was stopped at Pallavaram bus stop in the middle of the road. At that time, the bus belonging to the third respondent transport corporation, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner overtook the appellant bus. During the course of overtaking, the door of the overtaking bus, flung open and hit the right hand of the said A.R.Ahamed. In that accident, the bone of the right hand of the said A.R.Ahamad was fractured. The accident happened due to fault of both the drivers. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.3,08,434/- for the injury suffered in the accident. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Dharmaraj, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the accident register extract dated 7.7.1995, Ex.A-2 is the discharge summary dated 29.9.1995, Ex.A-3 is the Discharge summary issued by the Subedha Hospital dated 24.11.1995, Ex.A-4 is the printed copy of FIR dated 4.7.1995, Ex.A-5 is the payment receipt for receiving Rs.20,100/-, Ex.A-6 is the X-Ray and Ex.A-7 is the disability certificate dated 7.4.2004. On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the first respondent before the Tribunal, Mr.Danasekaran, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 4. The Tribunal discussed the oral and documentary evidence on record and held that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus based on Ex.R-4 FIR. There is no material to controvert the same. 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, cannot be and is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in appeal and the same is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised is on the quantum of compensation. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence of the claimant and that of the doctor supported by medical records issued by the various hospitals in which, the claimant had taken treatment, the period of hospitalisation and the disability assessed at 30%, granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 9% per annum:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of earning capacity Rs. 25,000/- 2 Disability assessed at 30% Rs. 30,000/- 3 Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/- 4 Medical expenses as per Ex.P-5 Rs. 20,000/- 5 Transport expenses Rs. 3,000/- 6 Extra nourishment expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.1,23,000/- 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the sum of Rs.25,000/- granted towards loss of earning capacity is not correct as sufficient compensation is granted towards disability. Further, the sum of Rs.40,000/- granted towards pain and suffering is higher. 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 4.7.1995. The injured claimant at the time of accident was 65 years old and was working as clerk in private company after retirement. (ii) From the records, it is clear that the injured claimant was treated first at the Government General Hospital, Chennai from 4.7.1995 to 7.7.1995 and then from 15.9.1995 to 25.9.1995 as inpatient thereafter at Subedha Nursing Home. According to Ex.A-3, the injured claimant expended a sum of Rs.20,100/- in the Subedha Hospital. During the course of treatment a steel plate was fixed to the right hand. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the movement of the right hand elbow joint of the injured claimant was restricted. The movement of right hand https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fingers are also restricted. The claimant is unable to hold any articles in his right hand. Doctor assessed the disability at 30%. It is stated that because of the fracture to the right hand, the claimant is unable to do his work as before. In this case, no amount was granted towards loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence. The compensation granted transport expenses and extra nourishment expenses for the above stated injury and treatment are very meagre. No amount has been granted towards attender charges. Hence, the sum of Rs.25,000/- granted towards loss of earning capacity and the marginally higher amount granted towards pain and suffering can be adjusted on the above stated heads. (iii) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- is reasonable and does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 9% as the accident in this case happened in the year 1995 and the award is of the year 2004. 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 Principal Subordinate Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chengalpattu. 1 cc to Mr.P. Jagadeeswaran, SR. 8068 C.M.A.No.591 of 2009 BS (CO) kk 30/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/