1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.10.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA C.M.A.(MD)No.1497 of 2010 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division III, Ranithottam, Nagercoil. .. Appellant/3rd Respondent Vs 1.R.Raju .. 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.Thanga Nadar 3.Raman .. Respondents 2 & 3/Respondents 1 & 2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award made in MCOP No.63 of 2003 dated 04.07.2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman for Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil JUDGMENT The appeal is preferred by the Transport Corporation against the judgment and award made in MCOP No.63 of 2003 dated 04.07.2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The injured-Raju met with motor traffic accident that took place on 04.01.2002 at about 20.45 hours at Anna Bus Stand. The said injured/ claimant got into the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0283. When the bus was about to move, he enquired whether the bus would go to Vadakkankulam. At that time, the conductor of the bus, the third respondent herein told the claimant that the bus will not go to that particular place and forced him to get down from the bus in a rash and negligent manner and whistled hurriedly. The driver of the bus, without noticing the door way, took the bus suddenly in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the said impact, the claimant slipped and fell down and the left back wheel of the bus ran over on the right foot of the claimant. Due to the same, his right foot was crushed and he sustained multiple fractures. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The appellant- Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Who is responsible for the accident? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so to what extent?" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income during the treatment period 40,000/- Transport expenses 2,500/- Extra nourishment 5,000/- Damage to clothes 500/- Medical expenses 1,00,000/- Pain and suffering 25,000/- Loss due to 25% disability 25,000/- --------------------- Total.... 1,98,000/- ============ Aggrieved by that award, the appellant / Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without any basis and justification. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to P24 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1-copy of the judgment was marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is the Doctor. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of Observation Mahazar. Ex.P3 is the copy of Rough Sketch. Ex.P4 is the copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report. Ex.P5 is the Wound Certificate. Ex.P6 is the Disability Certificate. Ex.P7 is the Discharge Card. Ex.P8 is the receipt for treatment. Ex.P9 are the medical bills. Exs.P10 to 19 and Ex.P24 are X-rays. Ex.P20 is the Salary Certificate. Ex.P21 is the ECG Report. Ex.P22 is the Certificate issued by Dr.Subramaniam Natesan. Ex.P23 is the copy of judgment. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation. It is a question of fact and it is based on valid materials and evidence, and hence the same is confirmed. 5. The injured-claimant was 41 years old at the time of accident. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that he is a Lab Assistant and Hostel Warden of Raja's Dental College and he was earning a sum of Rs.6500/- per month. Further, in his evidence, it is stated that only the driver of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 bus caused the accident and the driver was also charge-sheeted by Traffic Police Station, Nagercoil in Crime No.1 of 2002. Due to the accident, he sustained the following injuries:- 1.Crush injury on the foot. 2.Lacerated injury extensive to right foot exposing Meta Tarsal bone in dorsal side of right foot, bone exposed. 3.Fracture in 2,3,4,5 meta dorsal bone. 4.Fracture in middle 4th and 5th toes. Immediately he was admitted in the Hospital and he was attended by Orthopaedician. Ex.P7 is the Discharge Card, in which it is stated that he was admitted in the Subramaniam Natesan Hospital, Nagercoil from 05.01.2002 to 14.04.2002 and he took treatment as in-patient. So, it is evident from the above, that he was taking treatment for a period of 3 months. Since the claimant took treatment in the hospital as in-patient for a period of 3 months, certainly he would have lost income during that period. Ex.P20 is the Salary Certificate, in which it is stated that the injured was earning Rs.6500/- per month. Taking into consideration of the above, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. The amount awarded towards this head is also very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2500/- towards transport expenses. The amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2500/- towards transport expenses is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment. After taking into consideration of the fact that the claimant was in the hospital for a period of three months, after discharge, certainly he would have taken nutritious and healthy food for the speedy recovery. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards this head is also very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.500/- towards damages to clothes, which is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P9 are the series of medical bills. It is an actual expenditure and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25000/- towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration of the injuries stated above, i.e. crush injury on the foot, fracture in 2,3,4,5 meta dorsal bone and fracture in middle 4th and 5th toes, this Court is of the view that the amount awarded towards this head is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25000/- towards loss due to 25% disability. Ex.P6 is the Disability Certificate. Ex.P10 to Ex.P19 and Ex.P24 are the X-rays. After considering the above, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss due to 25% disability. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. Here, the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.1000/- per percentage of disability. The amount awarded towards this head is also very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest rate at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant period, this Court is of the view that the interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. I do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. The findings given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence. It is a question of fact and it is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and hence the same is confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 6. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and it is not a fit case for admission, and therefore, the same is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2010 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagercoil. + 1 cc to Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, Advocate, SR No.42224 + 1 LR Copy C.M.A.(MD)No.1497 of 2010 21.10.2010 KM RJ/23.11.2010 4p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/