IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 25.06.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA C.M.A.No.734 of 2004 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division II) Ltd., Cheenimalai Road, Erode. .. Appellant/Respondent Vs C. Veerakumar .. Respondent/Petitioner Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.2.2003 made in MCOP No.928 of 1998 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Tiruppur. For appellant : Mr. G. Muniratnam For respondent : Mr.D. Selvaraju JUDGMENT The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the award dated 17.02.2003 made in MCOP No.928 of 1998 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Tiruppur. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent/claimant met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 16.07.1998 at about 11.55 hours. The injured was proceeding in his Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN-39-E-6367 from west to east in Perumanallur-Erode National Highways Main Road near Check Post Perumanallur, keeping left side of the road. At that time a bus bearing registration No.TN-33-N-0950 belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, which came from east to west in the same road in a rash and negligent manner, without adhering the traffic regulation, hit against the injured. Due to the same the injured sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was admitted as 'in patient' in Arun Hospital, Erode The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.8,78,000/-, but it was restricted to Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "1.Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Motor cyclist/claimant or the driver of the bus belonging to the Appellant Transport Corporation? 2.What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to? If so, what is the amount and from whom?" 3. 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 appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details regarding the same are as under:- Permanent disability 50% Rs. 4,08,000/- Pain and Sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Medical Bills Rs. 70,592/- ------------- Total... Rs. 4,83,592/- ------------- Rounded to Rs. 4,50,000/- ============ Aggrieved by that award, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation contended that the Tribunal has wrongly concluded that the accident was occurred only due to the negligent driving of the appellant's bus driver. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and the Tribunal has also wrongly adopted multiplier method in the case of injury, and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 6. Heard the counsel. Perused the documents and records. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P63 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant, P.W.2 is one Punniyamoorthy. P.W.3 is doctor Gnanaprakash. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate. Ex.P3 series are Salary Certificates. Ex.P.4 Cash Memo. Ex.P.5 Medical Bill, Ex.P.6 Surgery Bill. Exs.P-7 to P-61 are the medical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bills Ex.P.62 is Disability Certificate and Ex.P.63 is X-ray. On behalf of the appellant-Transport Corporation, the bus driver Mr.Subramaniam was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. After considering the 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 appellant- Transport Corporation and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. P.W.2 also given evidence that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. F.I.R. is Ex.P1, in which also it is stated that the accident was occurred only due to the rash driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 25 years old. He is the owner of Hatchery Farm and earning Rs.5000/- per month. It is his evidence that the accident was happened due to the fault of the driver of the bus. Due to the accident he sustained following injuries:- "Fracture at right toe, right leg, right ankle, joint, right knee, and injuries all over the body." The driver of the bus also charge sheeted by the Perumanallur Police in Cr.No.180/1998 under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. P.W.3 Doctor, who examined the claimant, determined the disability at 50%. In his evidence he has stated that due to the injuries sustained, he is unable to do his work as before. In respect of disability, there is no dispute regarding the same. But the learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation by adopting multiplier method in the case of 50% of disability. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. In this case considering the facts and circumstances, I feel that it is reasonable to award Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. If Rs.2,000/- is awarded per percentage, The claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 50) towards permanent disability instead of Rs.4,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering which is very low. The award is very low. After taking into consideration the nature of the injury, it is reasonable to award Rs.7,500/- as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.70,592/- (as per Ex.Ps.4 to 61) towards medical expenses, which is an actual expenditure incurred by the claimant. Therefore, the amount awarded under this head is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards transport charges and extra nourishment. Since, the claimant was treated in the hospital for a period of one month, he would have certainly incurred expenses towards transport and extra nourishment. Therefore it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable amount towards loss of income during treatment period. After taking into consideration of the nature of the injury, it is found that he could not have attended the work. Hence a reasonable sum of Rs.12,000/- is awarded for the loss of income for a period three months. For the loss of amenities the Tribunal has not awarded any amount. Considering the nature of injury sustained, I feel that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- under this head. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. The date of accident is 16.7.1998. Considering the date of accident and the prevailing rate of interest during that time, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The details of modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- 50% of Permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000/- Pain and Sufferings Rs. 7,500/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Transport Charges Rs. 5,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 70,592/- Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- Loss of income during the period of treatment (3 months)Rs. 12,000/- ------------------ Total ... Rs. 2,25,092/- ------------------ 8. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.2,25,092/- as against the compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has submitted that already entire award amount has been deposited as per order of this Court dated 15.03.2004. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.2,25,092/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn on making proper application. The appellant-Transport Corporation is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application. 8. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ggs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur. + 1 CC to Mr.G.Muniratnam,Advocate,SR.45579 + 1 CC to Mr.D.Selvaraju,Advocate,SR.45540 C.M.A.No.734 of 2004 LA(CO) EM/19.7.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/