The Managing DirectorTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Madurai Division IV) Ltd.,Dindigul v. A.Rajasekar

corporation and one of the passengers regarding the loss of sideglass pane, there occasioned a delay in the said bus starting from Karur. At that juncture, the petitioner and others intervened andbrought about a compromise between the driver and the said passenger. However, the driver of the bus started the bus in a rash and arrogantmanner and was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. Whenthe bus was nearing the level crossing of the railway line in NH-7 inbetween Karur and Velur, the petitioner and others saw the train fastapproaching towards the level crossing and shouted hysterically tostop the bus. But the driver of the bus belonging to the appellanttransport corporation, without heeding any attention to the shouts ofthe passengers, continued to drive the same in a rash and negligentmanner and tried to cross the level crossing without noticing the redsignal at the level crossing and the level crossing barrier that wascoming down.

On seeing the same the petitioner ran towards the backportion of the bus to escape, but meanwhile the express train No.6711bound for Madurai hit the bus, as a result of which he was throwninside the bus and was dragged along with the bus. Initially thepetitioner was taken to Karur government hospital where from he wassent to Namakkal Thangam hospital on 14.08.1998 at about 10.00 a.m.Then he was taken to Salem for taking scanning and X-Rays. Again hewas brought back to Namakkal and he was treated as an in-patient forabout one month. Despite treatment, the injuries resulted inpermanent disability affecting his career as Medical Representative. Therefore, the appellant transport corporation is liable to paycompensation to the respondent herein/petitioner. Though therespondent herein/petitioner would assess the damages at a higheramount, he restricts his claim to Rs.4,00,000/-, which amount, shouldbe directed to be paid along with future interest and costs.

3. The said claim was resisted by the appellant transportcorporation by filing a counter statement, the contents of which, inbrief, are as follows:-a) The petition for compensation is not maintainable either inlaw or on facts. All the petition allegations should be proved byadducing proper evidence. The petition allegations regarding themanner in which the accident took place and the alleged injuriessustained by the respondent herein/petitioner are not true. Thepetitioner should also prove that the injuries sustained by him inthe accident led to permanent disability. The above said accidentdid not occur due to the rashness or the negligence on the part ofthe driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transportcorporation. On the other hand, the railway administration wastotally responsible for the accident. When the bus belonging to theappellant transport corporation, on its way from Madurai to Salem, was approaching the place of occurrence, railway gate No.36A had beenkept open without causing any hindrance to the flow of road trafficthrough the said level crossing.

In addition to that, there was nosignal indicating that the train was approaching towards the saidlevel crossing. As a number of vehicles proceeding in front of theappellant's bus were crossing the said level crossing, the driver of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the bus also was in the process of crossing the railway line at thesaid level crossing. But, unfortunately express train No.6711running between Chennai and Madurai came there at a high speed anddashed against the bus belonging to the appellant transportcorporation. The railway administration had failed to take pre-cautionary measures by locking the railway gate to prevent the flowof road traffic when the train was approaching the said levelcrossing. There was also no signal functioning at the time ofaccident. The said lapse on the part of the railway administrationalone was the cause of the accident. b) Be that as it may, the respondent/petitioner who has chosento file a petition claiming compensation should have impleaded therailway administration also as a necessary party to the proceedings.

Since the railway administration has not been made a party, the claimpetition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder ofnecessary party. Since the lapse on the part of the railwayadministration was the cause of the accident, if at all therespondent/petitioner is entitled to get any compensation, he canclaim the same only against the railway administration and notagainst the appellant transport corporation/respondent in the MCOP.The petition allegations regarding the age and income of therespondent herein/petitioner in the MCOP, the nature of injuriessustained by him, expenditure incurred for treatment and the natureand extent of disability suffered by him should also be proved byadducing proper evidence.4. Based on the above said pleadings, the appellant transportcorporation (respondent) had pleaded for the dismissal of the MCOPwith cost. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge as the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Namakkal framed necessary points fordetermination and conducted an enquiry, in which three witnesses wereexamined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and 20 documents were marked as Ex.A1 toEx.A20 on the side of the respondent herein/claimant.

No witness wasexamined and no document was marked on the side of the appellantherein/respondent. 6. The Tribunal considered the evidence brought before it in thelight of the arguments advanced on either side and upon suchconsideration, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred dueto the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the busbearing Regn. No.TN-57 N-0941 belonging to the appellant transportcorporation/respondent in the MCOP and that hence the appellanttransport corporation was liable to pay compensation to therespondent herein/claimant. The tribunal also held that the injuriessustained by the petitioner in the above said accident led topermanent disability and awarded a sum of Rs.3,95,988/- ascompensation to the respondent herein/claimant in the MCOP, directingthe appellant transport corporation to pay the said amount togetherwith an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claimtill realisation and with proportionate cost. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Aggrieved by and challenging the said award of the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Namakkal dated 20.10.2001, theappellant transport corporation/respondent in the MCOP has brought-forth this civil miscellaneous appeal on various grounds set out inthe memorandum of appeal. Along with the appeal, the appellant hadfiled an application C.M.P.No.18540 of 2002 for reception ofadditional documentary evidence. Similarly, the respondent/claimantalso filed a petition C.M.P.No.714 of 2008 for reception ofadditional documentary evidence. Both the applications were heardalong with the appeal and upon such hearing, this court reservedorders and thereafter passed an order on 14.10.2008 allowing both themiscellaneous petitions. There upon by consent of the parties, onemore document on the side of the respondent/claimant was marked asEx.A21 and one document was marked on the side of theappellant/respondent as Ex.B1. Consequently, further argumentsadvanced on either side in the appeal were heard and the materialsavailable on record wee also perused.

The points that arise for consideration in the CMA is: " 1) whether the claim made against the appellanttransport corporation without impleading the railwayadministration is not maintainable?2) Whether the appellant transport corporation isliable to pay compensation?3) Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal ascompensation is excessive requiring reduction in the appeal?"

The sole respondent in the MCOP before the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal (Sub Court), Namakkal is the appellant herein. Theclaim was made by the respondent herein/injured person based on hisplea that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligentdriving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporationby its driver and that hence the appellant transportcorporation/respondent was liable to pay compensation to therespondent herein/claimant. The appellant transport corporation, asthe sole respondent in the MCOP had taken a stand that the claim wasnot maintainable since the railway administration was not made aparty in the MCOP. When such a plea of non-joinder of necessary partyis raised by the opposite party, it is quite natural for the Tribunalto frame an issue in this regard and decide that issue also. In thecase on hand, though such a plea had been raised by the appellanttransport corporation as the foremost plea of defence, the learnedMotor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Namakkal failed to framean issue in this regard and decide the same. Pointing out the same, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment andaward of the Tribunal suffered a vital defect and infirmity in so faras it had failed to frame a necessary point for determination and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decide the said point based on the pleadings raised and evidencebrought before it.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentwould contend that the mere omission to frame and decide such a pointfor consideration, at best, may amount to an irregularity which canbe rectified in the appeal by the appellate court and that the issuebeing a legal issue can be framed and decided in the appeal itselfbased on the available materials.

It is an admitted fact that both parties went for trialknowing fully well the plea of defence raised by the appellantherein/respondent in the MCOP including the one questioning themaintainability on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. When the parties have taken part in the trial based on such rivalplea, the mere omission to frame an issue will not automatically leadto the conclusion that the order of the court below should bereversed or set aside. On the other hand, in such cases, it is notonly permissible but also just and necessary that such an issue isframed by the appellate court in the appeal and decided on the basisof available evidence. During the hearing of the appeal, the learnedcounsel appearing on either side, informed the court that they werevery much aware of the legal position and that the said questioncould be framed and decided by this court in the appeal itself basedon the evidence adduced before the Tribunal and the additionaldocumentary evidence adduced by either party in this appeal by virtueof the order dated 14.10.2008 passed in C.M.P.Nos.18540 of 2002 and714 of 2008. Let us now consider the plea of non-joinder of necessaryparty attacking the maintainability of the MCOP.

Admittedly the accident took place, as the bus belonging tothe appellant transport corporation while crossing a manned levelcrossing was hit by the express train bearing No.6711 running between Chennai and Madurai belonging to the Railways. According to therespondent herein/claimant, the rash and negligent act on the part ofthe driver of the bus belonging to the appellant herein/respondenttransport corporation was the sole cause of the accident. Therespondent herein/claimant has made a clear averment to the effectthat when the barrier at the level crossing was slowly coming down, disregarding the same and in an attempt to cross the level crossingbefore ever the train could come, the driver of the bus belonging tothe Transport Corporation followed another vehicle; that in such anattempt the bus got trapped under the barrier that was coming downand that in the meanwhile the train came and hit the bus.

On the other hand, the appellant herein/respondent contendedthat the railway administration had failed to fix signal lights atthe point of level crossing; that the gate keeper also failed toclose and lock the gate barring entry of the motor vehicles when thetrain was to pass through the said level crossing and that onlybecause of the negligence on the part of the railway administration, the accident took place. When the claimant has come forward with a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ plea that the accident took place solely due to the negligence on thepart of the driver of the motor vehicle, the mere fact that a trainwas also involved in the accident or that the accident took place dueto the composite negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle aswell as the railway administration, the same shall not be enough toreject the claim application on the ground of non-joinder ofnecessary parties as the railway administration has not been made aparty.

In case of composite negligence, the liability of jointtort-feasers is joint and several and a victim who suffers injury inan accident occurring due to the composite negligence of joint tort-feasers, can claim compensation from all or any one of the jointtort-feasers. This position was made clear by a full bench of the Karnataka High Court in Ganesh Vs. Syed Munned Ahamed and Ors.reported in II(1999) ACC 9. The majority view of the full bench of Karnataka High Court in the above said case is to the effect that, inthe case of a motor vehicle accident caused due to the compositenegligence of the drivers of two or more vehicles, the person who isinjured or the legal representatives of a person who is killed insuch accident, shall be entitled to claim the entire compensationfrom the drivers, owners and insurers of all such vehicles or one ofsuch vehicles alone.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. United IndiaInsurance Co. Ltd., and Others reported in 1997 (8) SCC 683 held thatthe Tribunal constituted under Section 110(1) of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1939 (old act) was an alternative forum in substitution of civilcourts for adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in respectof the accidents arising out of the use of the motor vehicles andthat the claim for compensation was maintainable before the Tribunalagainst the persons or the agencies which were held to be guilty ofcomposite negligence or against joint tort-feasers. Of course in thesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed a view that incase of composite negligence, the right of the claimant forcompensation and the corresponding duty cast on the Tribunal arecircumscribed by various checks and limitations, which directly tellupon various common law principles enunciated in English Law Textbookon torts conveying a meaning that all the joint tort-feasers shouldbe made parties to the claim petition. However, in another casedecided by the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in Ganesh Vs. SyedMunned Ahamed and Ors. reported in II(1999) ACC 9 in respect of anaccident that had occurred due to the composite negligence of thedrivers of two vehicles it was held that the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal was clearly the alternative forum in substitution of thecivil court for adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respectof an accident arising out of use of the motor vehicles was joint andseveral and each one was responsible jointly with each and all of theothers and also severally for the whole of the amount of damagecaused by the tort-feasers' act irrespective of the extent of hisparticipation and that the injured might sue any one of themseparately for the full amount of loss or may sue all of them jointly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the same action and even in the latter case a judgment so obtainedagainst all of them might be executed in full against any one ofthem.

Relying on the above said majority view expressed by the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Ganesh Vs. Syed MunnedAhamed and Ors. reported in II(1999) ACC 9 and the view of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,and Others reported in 1997 (8) SCC 683 cited supra, once againanother full bench of the Karnataka High Court in Karnataka StateTransport Corporation, Bangalore and Others vs. Arun alias Aravindand others reported in AIR 2004 Karnataka 149 expressed similar viewthat in case of composite negligence of drivers of two vehicles, theclaimants could recover compensation from any one of the joint tort-feasers and the non-impleadment of the other joint tort-feasers wasno ground either to reject the claim on the ground of absence ofnecessary party or to reduce the compensation in proportion to theblame worthiness of the joint tort-feaser who was not impleaded asparty. Unanimous view of the full bench of the Karnataka High Courtin the said case was to the effect that in case of compositenegligence, non-impleadment of the joint tort-feasers was not fatalto the case; that the claimant could maintain his claim forcompensation against all or any one of the joint tort feasers to itsfull extent and that the Tribunal should not aim at eitherapportioning the liability or reducing the liability in proportion tothe extent of blame-worthiness of the joint tort-feasers who were notmade parties, for the simple reason that such an order ofapportionment would not be binding on the other joint tort-feasers.

In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Prem Kumaramreported in 1988 ACJ 597, a case wherein the accident occurred as aresult of the composite negligence of the driver of a motor vehicleand the railways, facts of which are similar to the facts of the caseon hand, Kerala High Court held that the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal alone had got jurisdiction to entertain a claim forcompensation. When the said judgment of the Kerala High Court andthe two full court judgments of the Karnataka High Court cited supraare considered in the light of the views expressed by the SupremeCourt in the above said cases, this court has to necessarily come tothe conclusion that the defence plea raised by the appellantherein/respondent that the claim for compensation made by therespondent herein/claimant without impleading the railway is bad fornon-joinder of necessary parties has got to be discountenanced. Thesaid contention, in the light of the above said pronouncements, deserves to be rejected as unsound and untenable. Accordingly thearguments advanced on behalf of the appellant on the above said linesis hereby rejected as there is no substance in it.

The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent made afurther submission to the effect that even if it is assumed that anapplication for compensation in respect of an accident involving amotor vehicle and a train belonging to the Railways can be maintained https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ against the owner of the motor vehicle alone on the strength of theplea that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the motorvehicle, unless the respondent herein/claimant was in a position tosubstantiate his contention that the accident was the result of thenegligence of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellantherein/respondent or that the composite negligence of the driver ofthe bus and the Railway Administration was the cause of the accident, the respondent herein/claimant could not sustain a claim against theappellant herein/respondent. In other words, the contention of theappellant herein/respondent is to the effect that there was nonegligence, not even a composite negligence, on the part of eitherthe appellant herein/respondent or its driver; that the accidentoccurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the railways andthat hence though the MCOP filed against the appellant wasmaintainable, the appellant herein/respondent could not be heldliable to pay compensation except to the extent of no fault liabilityunder Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the absence ofproof of any amount of negligence or rashness on the part of theappellant or its employee.

As per Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereany Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, the civilcourt shall not have jurisdiction to entertain any question relatingto any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area. As per Section 165 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988, Tribunals may be constituted by the stategovernment for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims forcompensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodilyinjury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles or damagesto any property of a third party so arising or both. A conjointreading of Section 165 and 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inthe light of a specific provision contained in Section 167 providingfor option to the claimant to claim compensation either under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, it has beenheld in several cases that the Tribunal constituted under theprovisions of the Motor Vehicles Act shall alone have the power todeal with such a claim to the exclusion of the civil court either theclaim be against the driver, owner or insurer of the motor vehicle oragainst a third party like Railways.

In the case on hand, it is not the case of the appellantherein/respondent that there was any such admission which shallbecome admissible as a piece of evidence. On the other hand, theappellant/respondent simply relies on the charge sheet in order toprove that there was negligence on the part of the railway officials. At the same time, the respondent herein/claimant has produced a copyof the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge pronounced inC.A.No.55/2007 acquitting one of the accused persons. It is obviousfrom Ex.A21, the certified copy of the judgment pronounced inC.A.No.55/2007, that the calendar case instituted based on Ex.B1charge sheet ended in conviction of the gate-keeper as well as thestation- master; that as against the conviction and sentence, thestation master alone preferred an appeal and that the said appeal wasallowed setting aside the conviction and sentence and acquitting himof the charges leveled against him. In the light of the above saidjudgment, there is no scope for the appellant herein/respondent tocontend now that there was negligence on the part of the stationmaster leading to the accident in not warning the driver of the trainof the failure of signal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The learned counsel for the appellant herein/respondentwould point out the fact that only the conviction of the station-master and sentence imposed on him were set aside and that the gate-keeper who was arraigned as second accused did not file any appealagainst his conviction. As pointed out supra, the mere fact that aperson is convicted in a criminal court shall not be the conclusiveproof that there was negligence on his part and the said judgment ofthe criminal court shall not be relevant except to the extent ofshowing that there was a criminal trial which ended in conviction. Even assuming that the judgment of conviction of the gate-keeper, whofigured as the second accused in the Calendar Case registeredregarding the accident concerned in this appeal, can be taken to be avalid material to come to the conclusion that there was negligence onhis part, the same shall not enough to come to a conclusion that thenegligence on his part was the sole cause of the accident and thatthere was no negligence on the part of the driver of the busbelonging to the appellant herein/respondent, in which case alone theclaim based on fault made against the appellant can be disallowed. In this case, besides making clear averment that the driver of thebus acted rashly and negligently in driving the bus right from themoment he started the bus from Karur till the accident took place; that while the barrier at the level crossing was slowly coming down, the driver of the bus dared to follow the vehicle that was going infront of him disregarding the warning signal; that the barrier camedown and rested on the top of the bus preventing the bus from movingeither forward or backward and that instantaneously the train cameand hit the bus causing the said accident, clear evidence, both oraland documentary, have also been adduced to prove the said allegation.

On the other hand no witness was examined on the side ofthe appellant herein/respondent to show that there was no such rashor negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus belonging tothe appellant herein/respondent. Yet another factor should also beenkept in mind while considering the contention of the appellant thatthere was no negligence on the part of the driver of the appellantherein. It is an admitted fact that both the driver and conductor ofthe bus died in the said accident. Therefore, there was no scope forprosecuting them for any offence relating to the accident. That iswhy the police have chosen to prosecute railway officials alone. Inthe said circumstances the prosecution of the railway officials alonewill not negative the negligence on the part of the driver of the busbelonging to the appellant herein/respondent.

For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to theconclusion that the appellant herein/respondent has not substantiatedits contention that there was no negligence on the part of the driverof the appellant herein/respondent and that the accident took placesolely due to the negligence on the part of the railway officials. On the other hand, the respondent herein/ claimant has clearlyestablished the fact that the accident was the result of the rash andnegligent act on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant herein/respondent. It has also been proved by therespondent herein that the negligence on the part of the driver ofthe appellant herein/respondent was also the cause of the accidenteven if it is assumed that there was some kind of negligence on thepart of the railway officials and hence appellant herein/respondentcould at least be construed to be a joint tort-feaser. Therefore thechallenge made to the award on the ground that the railwayadministration has not been made a party or that there was nonegligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to theappellant herein/respondent is not sustainable and the contentionsraised in this regard on behalf of the appellant have got to berejected as untenable.

The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.3,95,988/- ascompensation. The said amount was directed to be paid along with aninterest on the said amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the dateof petition till realisation and also with proportionate cost. Thesplit-up particulars of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are as follows: Compensation for permanent disabilityand loss of income caused by suchpermanent disability, taking the extentof permanent disability to be 50%: Rs.3,60,000/-Medical expenses for which documentshave been produced (Ex.A5, A8, A10& A12): Rs. 25,988/-Pain and suffering: Rs. 10,000/- ----------------TOTAL Rs.3,95,988/- ----------------25. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the petitioner priorto the accident at Rs.4,000/-, the extent of permanent disabilityand the loss of earning capacity at 50% and the age of the petitioneras on the date of accident at 43 years, selected and applied 15 asthe appropriate multiplier and thus arrived at the above said figure.

Ex.A3 is the copy of the Accident Register issued to therespondent herein/claimant at Government Hospital, Karur. Aftertaking initial treatment in the Government Hospital, Karur, therespondent herein/claimant was given treatment as an in-patient in aprivate hospital at Namakkal. Treatment history for the treatmentgiven to him in the private hospital at Namakkal by name "ThangamHospital" has been marked as Ex.A4. The bill evidencing payment ofRs.10,940/- to the said hospital is Ex.A5. The Discharge Summaryissued to the respondent herein/claimant in the said hospital isEx.A6. Scan Report is Ex.A7. The Treatment Card issued to therespondent herein/claimant at "Sri Nidhi Hospital" is Ex.A9. A billevidencing payment of Rs.6,080/- to the said hospital is Ex.A10. Themedical bills have been produced as Ex.A12 series. From the saiddocuments, it is obvious that the respondent herein/claimant hadsustained following injuries:- i) A lacerated wound on the right parietal region measuring 7 cmx 3 cm x 2 cm; ii) A Contusion over left shoulder; iii) Tenderness crepitation on the right clavicle; iv) Contusion diffuse on the right shoulder;v) A lacerated wound over the prima of the left ear; vi) A lacerated wound on the scalp measuring 10 cm x 1 cm x https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1 cm; and vii) Multiple contusion over the left side of the chest.X-Ray and scan reports show the damage to the teeth, fracture onthe right clavicle, fracture in the skull at left temporal bone anddislocation of left acromio clavicular joint. He had also beendiagnosed to have diffuse cerebral edema. He had also been giventreatment by P.W.2 (Dr.S.Ilamathi), a dentist who has also givenEx.A8 certificate for receipt of a sum of Rs.4,650/- from therespondent herein / injured claimant.

It is quite obvious from the above said parole evidence anddocuments that the respondent herein/claimant sustained multiplegrievous injuries including fractures and dislocations. Even afterproper treatment given to him, he has suffered permanent disabilityas evidenced by the testimonies of the medical officers, namely P.W.2and P.W.3. P.W.2 has assessed the disability so far as the damagecaused to the teeth is concerned. The certificate issued by her isEx.A19. She has opined that the permanent disability caused by thedamage caused to the teeth and by the disfiguration found on the facewas assessed by her at 20%. P.W.3 assessed the disability caused bythe fracture and dislocations pointed out supra and gave Ex.A20 -certificate opining that there was permanent disability to the tuneof 40% caused by the said injuries. If the extent of the two typesof disabilities are added by arithmetical calculation, the totaldisability will come to 60%. But as per "The manual for doctors toevaluate permanent physical impairment issued based on expert groupmeeting on disability evaluation" the total percentage of disabilitycaused by two types of disabilities assessed separately should beworked out using the following formula: Total disability = a + b(90-a) (a = greater) 90 (b = lesser) If the said formula is applied then the total disability can becalculated as follows:-Total disability = 40 + 20(90-40) 90 = 40 + 11.1 = 51.1%28.

While adopting multiplier method in case of permanentdisability, the amount thus arrived at shall represent only the lossof future earning capacity. In such a case, it shall be just andnecessary to award a nominal amount for the discomforts and loss ofamenities caused by the permanent disability. In Cholan RoadwaysCorporation Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam vs. Ahmed Thambi and others reported in 2006 (4) CTC 433 it has beenheld that two methods of assessment of compensation in case ofinjuries leading to permanent disability are possible; that in caselumpsum compensation is awarded for the permanent disability it willtake into its fold the loss of future earning capacity and loss ofamenities in life caused by the permanent disability in which case, compensation on the head of permanent disability as such or loss ofearning capacity cannot be separately itemised. On the other hand ifthe multiplier method is adopted to assess the compensation for theloss of earning capacity, then there shall be no impediment forseparately itemising the compensation for loss of amenities caused bythe permanent disability. As the above said amount of Rs.3,12,000/-was assessed only as compensation for loss of future earningcapacity, some amount should be awarded for loss of amenities in lifecaused by the permanent disability. This court deems it fit to awarda sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on the said ground.

The petitioner has produced medical bills to the tune ofRs.4,317.08P in Ex.A12 series, Rs.6,080/- in Ex.A10, Rs.4,650/- inEx.A8 and Rs.10,940/- in Ex.A5. The Tribunal has chosen to award theaggregate of the said amounts. In all a sum of Rs.25,988/- wasawarded as compensation for medical expenses. Considering the natureof injuries sustained by the respondent herein/claimant and theextent of permanent disability with which he is now found, areasonable amount should have been awarded as compensation for painand suffering. But the Tribunal has chosen to award Rs.10,000/- onlyas compensation for pain and suffering. This court feels thatenhancing the same to Rs.15,000/- shall be quite reasonable. Theaccident took place on 13.08.1998. The injuries should have causedhim total loss of earning capacity during the period of treatment andthe period needed for rest. It should also be noted that within fourmonths from the date of accident, the respondent herein/claimant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ resigned his job as evidenced by Ex.A15. At least for three monthshe should have been without any earning. Therefore for three monthsfrom the date of accident he should have suffered a total loss ofearning, for which awarding a sum of Rs.12,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 3) ascompensation shall be quite reasonable. No amount has been awardedby the Tribunal towards compensation for extra nourishment andtransport expenses. Awarding a sum of Rs.3,250/- towards extranourishment and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards transport expenses shallbe quite reasonable. Thus, the total amount that can be awarded asreasonable compensation can be worked out as follows: Compensation for loss of futureearning capacity: Rs.3,12,000/-Medical Expenses (R.O): Rs. 26,000/-Pain and suffering: Rs. 15,000/-Loss of amenities in life: Rs. 10,000/-Loss of earning from the dateof accident and during the: Rs. 12,000/-treatment periodExtra Nourishment: Rs. 3,250/-Transport Expenses: Rs. 2,000/-----------------Total Rs.3,80,250/-----------------As per Ex.A17, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.250/- assolatium by the Government from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. The said amount can be deducted from the total compensation. Thetotal compensation after deducting Rs.250/-, comes to Rs.3,80,000/-.

For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to theconclusion that the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires a marginal reduction as indicated above i.e., fromRs.3,95,988 to Rs.3,80,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded an interest atthe rate of 9% only, which cannot be stated to be on the higher side. Therefore no change can be made regarding the rate of interest.

In the result the appeal is allowed in part and the award ofthe Tribunal is modified by reducing the total amount of compensationfrom Rs.3,95,988/- to Rs.3,80,000/-. In all other respects the awardof the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. The parties are directed tobear their respective costs in the civil miscellaneous appeal. asrSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Namakkal2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr. T. M. Ramalingam, Advocate SR No.29026PUR(CO)SR/27.7.2009JUDGMENTIN C.M.A.No.2727/2002