IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.11.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A. No. 352 of 2007 P. Megaraj .. Appellant/ Petitioner Versus 1. K. Anandan 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Motor Third Party Claims Office No.46, First Floor Moore Street, Chennai – 600 001 .. Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.06.2006 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1125 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr. U.M. Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr. S. Jayashankar for R2 JUDGMENT The claimant is the appellant. The claimant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 15.06.2006 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1125 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, awarding a sum of Rs.83,880/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- made for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 03.09.2001. 2. According to the claimant, on 03.09.2001 at about 07.05 hours when he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN-04-D-5487 from Poonamallee to Parrys, the driver of the tanker lorry bearing Registration No. TN 45 Y 3717 driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motor cycle from behind. In the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries such as open book type pelvic injury in left wrist, fractural transverse process levertebra left, deep cut injury on right leg, pelvic region and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai and subsequently he was admitted in M.N. Orthopaedic Hospital, Kilpauk, Chennai. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 29 years, a tomato vendor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and earning Rs.250/- per day. Therefore, for the injuries sustained in the accident, he claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation. 3, The insurance company resisted the claim petition by filing a counter before the court below. It was contended on behalf of the insurance company that the injuries sustained by the claimant are minor in nature and it does not warrant a huge compensation, as claimed in the claim petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant would contend that the claimant had sustained fracture injury in his hip. A Doctor was examined on behalf of the claimant before the Court below, who had assessed the disability sustained by him at 70%. However, the court below, reduced the percentage of disability to 50% on the ground that the Doctor, who was examined on behalf of the claimant, was not the Doctor who actually treated him. According to the learned counsel for the claimant, the reduction of percentage of disability by the Court below is invalid inasmuch as no findings were given for such reduction. According to the learned counsel for the claimant, the court below awarded meager amount towards extra nourishment, pain and suffering, transportation charges and attendant charges, which are grossly disproportionate to the nature and extent of injuries suffered by the claimant. Therefore, he would pray for enhancing the compensation amount. 5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurance company would vehemently contend that even as per the records, the claimant was admitted as in-patient for 3 days namely from 03.09.2001 to 05.09.2001 in M.N. Orthopaedic Hospital, Kilpauk Chennai – 600 001 for the alleged extensive injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Doctor, who was examined on behalf of the claimant namely Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan, PW4, is a stock witness and his evidence is exaggerated. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, for the simple injuries sustained by the claimant, the Doctor has assessed the disability at 70% which is nothing but an exaggeration to enable the claimant to get more amount as compensation. PW4 in his evidence has not specifically mentioned as to why he had assessed 70% disability in favour of the claimant/appellant herein. Further, in several motor accident cases, the evidence adduced by Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan has been severely deprecated by this Court. In any event, the Court below rightly disbelieved the medical evidence adduced by PW4 and awarded a just and reasonable amount as compensation and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard both sides. The insurance company admits the date, time, manner in which the accident occurred as also the liability to pay the compensation amount. The appal is at the instance of the claimant, aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the Court below and he seeks for enhancement. 7. The claimant has come forward with this appeal mainly contending that the assessment of disability by the Doctor, PW4 at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 70% was not taken into consideration by the court below. Further, the court below has not given any acceptable finding for reduction of the percentage of disability from 70% to 50%. Consequently, the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards disability is very low considering the hip fracture sustained by the claimant. 8. The learned counsel for the insurance company/second respondent would contend that even as per Ex.P2, discharge summary, it is clear that the claimant was hospitalised for 3 days. Even as per the claimant, he sustained injuries such as open book type pelvic injury in left wrist, fractural transverse process levertebra left, deep cut injury on right leg, pelvic region and other multiple injuries all over the body. The wounds were sutured and the claimant was advised LS belt. Even after discharge, the claimant was only advised to take rest and belt alone was suggested. The claimant was asked to come for a review after a week and this is evident that the percentage of disability, as assessed by PW4, Dr. Thiagarajan is high, especially when he has not given any treatment to the claimant at any point of time. The deposition of PW4, Dr. Thiagarajan would clearly reveal that he has not verified the records and simply assessed the disability at 70%. In his chief examination, PW4 has deposed thus:- ",Lg;g[ vYk;gpyp 4 FWf;F vYk;g[fs; Kwpe;J khwhf Toa[s;sJ. ,Lg;gpd; gpd;dhy; cs;s K:l;Lfs; tpyfp mnj epiyapy; cs;sJ/ bjhlh;e;J cl;fhu rpukk;/ tyJ KH';fhy; njhy; fpHpe;J K:lL ,Wfptpl;lJ/ 45 ofphp kl;Lk; klf;f Koa[k;/ KJF euk;g[ L5 Kwpe;J fpHe;J tpl;lJ/ typ cs;sJ/ Fdpe;J epkph;e;J ntiy bra;tjpy; rpukk;/ 9. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent/ insurance company, the evidence of PW4 would reveal that he issued the disability certificate, Ex.P19 in favour of the claimant only on 19.01.2006 i.e., five years after the date of accident. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurance company, the Court below is justified in disbelieving the exaggerated evidence given by PW4. 10. The insurance company has not filed any appeal as against the award passed by the Court below. The claimant alone filed the present appeal. According to the claimant, the Court below, by reducing the percentage of disability assessed by PW4 at 70% to 50% awarded a meager sum of Rs.50,000/- towards disability which is grossly disproportionate to the nature of injuries sustained. 11. It is a sad state of affairs that the benevolent legislation of the Motor Vehicles Act is abused and misused in this case. The claimant made a claim for compensation as if he had sustained grievous injuries such as open book type pelvic injury in left wrist, fractural transverse process levertebra left, deep cut injury on right leg, pelvic region and other multiple injuries all over the body. The claimant heavily relied on the medical evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ adduced by PW4, Doctor. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurance company, PW4, Doctor, who gives regular evidence in motor accident cases by exaggerating the actual disability sustained by the injured without verifying the records so as to enable them to get more amount as compensation. 12. From the records, it is seen that in the discharge summary, Ex.P2 issued by M.M. Orthopaedic Hospital, Chennai, it was only stated that the claimant was admitted for 3 days, diagnosed for open book type pelvic injury. The wounds were sutured and it was found that TR L5 Vertebra was affected for which he was given treatment. Subsequently, the claimant was treated as out-patient and given treatment, for which the Doctor, PW4, examined on behalf of the claimant, had assessed the disability at 70%. The disability certificate was issued by PW4 after five years from the accident. It is also evident that PW4 had never treated the claimant at any point of time nor verified the medical records of the claimant before issuing the disability certificate. Though the Court below disbelieved the deposition of PW4, it had reduced the percentage of disability assessed by PW4 from 70% to 50% on the ground that PW4 never treated the claimant. Notwithstanding the above, the claimant had the wherewithal to file the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Court below has not taken the percentage of disability, as assessed by the Doctor, PW4 and reduced it from 70% to 50% without any reason. 13. From the reading of the evidence of PW4, Doctor, he has only stated that he examined the claimant on 19.01.2006. He does not even say when the accident occurred. PW4 only says that in the pelvic region, 4 bones have been broken or it joined improperly. Such an evidence adduced by PW4 is not correct inasmuch as it is contrary to the discharge summary issued by M.M. Orthopaedic Hospital, Chennai immediately after discharge of the claimant after 3 days from the date of accident. PW4 also has not stated anywhere that he had verified the past medical records of the claimant to assess the disability sustained by him. Therefore, without even verifying the discharge summary, PW4 has given a medical opinion and I am at a loss to understand as to how PW4 can come to such a conclusion to assess 70% disability in favour of the claimant. 14. It is seen from the records that PW4 opined that due to the injuries sustained by the claimant, he will not be in a position to drive the vehicle, sit or squat for a long time for which he assessed 45% out of 70%, but he has not stated anywhere whether the claimant is disabled from undertaking his work as before or in what way he was incapacitated. PW4 further stated that the right knee has come down and the claimant can move it only upto 45 degree. He also stated that due to the accident, the claimant has to limp while walking and therefore, he assessed another 10% disability. PW4 further stated that the claimant could not bend or stand for a long time, for which he assessed another 15% disability. Thus, PW4 assessed the total disability of the claimant at 70% https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15. The insurance company also has to be blamed for there is no sufficient cross-examination of PW4, Doctor. Only before this Court, the Insurance Company contends that the medical evidence of the Doctor is exaggerated and it is not trustworthy, but no such suggestion was put to PW4 when he was in the box during cross- examination. On behalf of the insurance company, only 3 questions were suggested during the time of cross-examination of PW4. The insurance company has also failed in many fronts and has not discharged their statutory obligation before the Court below by producing any contra evidence to prove the actual disability sustained by the claimant. 16. When the discharge summary does not reveal any serious injury to the claimant, especially pelvic bone fracture, it is not known as to how PW4 can assess the disability of the claimant at 70%. Therefore, in my opinion, the appeal filed by the claimant, claiming enhanced compensation over and above Rs.83,880/- awarded by the court below as compensation, is not sustainable. The claimant/appellant is unable to establish any infirmity or illegality in the award of compensation passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court. 17. Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimant/appellant is dismissed. No costs. It is represented that the insurance company had deposited the entire compensation amount awarded by the Court below and the claimant/appellant also withdrew 50% of the amount. In view of the dismissal of this appeal, the claimant/appellant is permitted to withdraw the balance compensation amount, if any, with accrued interest. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. rsh To 1. The II Judge Small Causes Court Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chennai 2. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc to Mr.V.M. Ravichandran, Advocate, sr. 69021 1 cc to Mr.S. Jayasankar, Advocate, Sr. 68851 CMA No. 352 of 2007 RSI (CO) kk 5/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/