The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, (Salem Division-II), Bharathipuram,Dharmapuri-5 v. V.Selvaraj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 2.3.2009CoramThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKARCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.488 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, (Salem Division-II),Bharathipuram,Dharmapuri-5. ... Appellant/1st Respondent vs.1.V.Selvaraj,2.K.Renukadevi,3.National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Branch office, Anuradha Complex, III Floor, Bangalore Road, Krishnagiri Town. ... Respondents/Petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 1.7.2008passed in M.C.O.P.No.1244 of 2006 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Krishnagiri.For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 1.7.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1244 of2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (PrincipalDistrict Court), Krishnagiri. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are asfollows:- The accident in this case happened on 25.11.2003. Theinjured claimant V.Selvaraj, aged 43 years, was travelling in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant transport corporation bus. At that time, KAKC busbelonging to the second respondent was coming in the oppositedirection. Due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers,both the buses collided with each other. In that accident manypassengers who travelled in both the buses sustained injuries. Asper the award of the Tribunal, the claimant suffered the followinginjuries:-"1. Lacerated wound 1 cm in front of rightleg deformity, pain, tenderness present over rightleg and knee movements restricted. X-ray :Fracture right tibia condyle. 2. Swelling pain tenderness over left ankleand foot. X-ray fracture left cancaneum.Fracture of 2nd and 3rd metatarsal bones of leftfoot." He was first treated at the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri,thereafter, at St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, wherehe was treated as inpatient from 25.11.2003 to 2.1.2004 and underwentoperation for the fracture of right leg and illizarov externalfixator applied. Thereafter, he was treated as outpatient for twomonths. Then as inpatient from 9.3.2004 to 12.3.2004 and removedillizarov external fixator and bone marrow injunction was given andFCB applied. Thereafter he was treated at Dharmapuri privately aswell as St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. He wasworking as the Deputy Inspector in Local Fund AdvertisementDepartment, Dharmapuri and was earning a sum of Rs.11,700/- per monthat the time of accident. He filed a claim for compensation in a sumof Rs.15,00,000/- for the injury suffered in the accident.3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant wasexamined as P.W.1. Dr.S.S.Ravikumar, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-14 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-Ex.P-1 is the attested photocopy of FIR, dated 25.11.2003,Ex.P-2 is the wound certificate issued by St.John's Medical CollegeHospital, Bangalore, dated 8.2.2004,Exs.P-3 and P-4 are the attested photocopies of Motor VehicleInspector's Inspection Reports dated 25.11.2003,Ex.P-5 is the salary certificate of the injured claimant dated 7.1.2007,Ex.P-6 is the discharge summary for the period from 25.11.2003 to2.1.2004,Ex.P-7 is the discharge summary for the period from 9.3.2004 to12.3.2004, Ex.P-8 is the discharge summary for the period from 27.8.2004 to3.9.2004, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.P-9 is the discharge summary of Nathan Pvt. Hospital Salem for the period from 29.5.2007 to 9.6.2007,Ex.P-10 is the referred O.P. Sheet by Government Hospital, Krishnagiri,Ex.P-11 is the photos and negatives,Ex.P-12 series are the medical bills,Ex.P-13 is the disability certificate dated 31.12.2007,Ex.P-14 is the X-ray.On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the firstrespondent before the Tribunal, Mr.Munivel, the driver of the KAKCbus was examined as R.W.1. The driver of the appellant transportcorporation bus was examined as R.W.2. No document was marked onbehalf of the appellant transport corporation.4. The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence onrecord and also considering the fact that F.I.R. was registered onlyagainst the appellant transport corporation bus, came to theconclusion that the driver of the appellant transport corporationbus was rash and negligent in driving the bus and was responsible forthe accident, in which the claimant suffered grievous injuries asabove and consequently, liability to compensate the injured claimantwas fixed on the appellant transport corporation. Such finding ofthe Tribunal is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for theappellant and the same is confirmed. 5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunalbased on the oral evidence of the claimant and that of the doctorsupported by medical records issued by the various hospitals inwhich, the claimant had taken treatment, the period ofhospitalisation and the disability assessed at 50%, granted thefollowing amount as compensation with interest at 9% per annum:- Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of income during the period oftreatment for three months Rs. 30,000/-2Disability assessed at 50%Rs. 50,000/-3Pain and sufferingRs. 20,000/-4Medical bills as per Exs.P-9 and P-12Rs. 3,55,225/-5Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/-6Extra nourishmentRs. 5,000/-TotalRs. 4,65,225/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleadedthat the disability assessed at 50% is higher. Further, thecompensation granted towards medical expenses is excessive. She alsopleaded that the rate of interest granted at 9% is higher.Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. 7. On going through the award of the Tribunal, this Court is notinclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation on the abovesaid contentions for the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened on 25.11.2003. The injuredclaimant was 43 years old at the time of accident. He wasworking as Deputy Inspector in Local Fund AdvertisementDepartment.(ii) From the records, it is clear that the injured claimant wasfirst treated at Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, thereafter, atSt. John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, where he wastreated as inpatient from 25.11.2003 to 2.1.2004 and underwentoperation for the fracture of right leg and illizarov externalfixator applied. Thereafter he was treated as outpatient for twomonths. Then as inpatient from 9.3.2004 to 12.3.2004 and whenillizarov external fixator was removed and bone marrow injunctionand FCB applied. Thereafter he was treated at Dharmapuriprivately as well as St. John's Medical College Hospital,Bangalore. The compensation granted towards pain and suffering,transport expenses and extra nourishment expenses for the abovestated injury and treatment are very meagre. No amount has beengranted towards attender charges. (iii) The disability at 50% has been assessed by the doctor underEx.P-13, disability certificate. No document was produced onbehalf of the appellant transport corporation that the disabilityassessed by the doctor is high. For the disability assessed at50% a sum of Rs.50,000/- is granted, which is reasonable. (iv) Based on Exs.P-9 and P-12 series, the Tribunal granted a sumof Rs.3,55,225/- towards medical expenses. With regard tomedical expenses the Tribunal discussed it in para 16 of theaward. The amounts paid as advance amount were deducted by theTribunal. According to Ex.P-12 series, a sum of Rs.5,37,839.40was claimed. From the said amount, the Tribunal deducted a sumof Rs.1,85,391.00 paid as advance amount and granted only a sumof Rs.3,52,448.40. It is also stated that along with Ex.P-9discharge summary, some medical bills for Rs.2,776.10 have beenfiled. In total, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.3,55,225/-alone which cannot be disputed as it is based on verification ofrecords. Appellant is not able to show the error in calculation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) Even though the appellant contended that the interest granted at9% in this case is excessive, no ground is raised in the groundsof appeal. (vi) The facts that no amount granted towards attender charges andlesser amount granted towards transport expenses, extranourishment and pain and suffering, will compensate the higherinterest granted in this case. (vii) Considering the above aspects and the long period ofhospitalization, the total compensation granted in a sum ofRs.4,65,225/- by the Tribunal does not require any furtherreduction as also the interest granted at 9%. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isdismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeksfor eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted andon such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartsToThe Principal District Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal)Krishnagiri. 1 cc To Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.7280C.M.A.No.488 of 2009PA(CO)SRA(9/03/2009)