Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Salamedu, Villupuram v. Prakash

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.3.2009CoramThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKARCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.616 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director,The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Salamedu,Villupuram. ... Appellant/Respondent vs.Prakash ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 ofMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated17.9.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.71 of 2007 on the file of the MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai.For appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh JUDGMENT The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 17.9.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.71 of2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Thiruvannamalai.2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case areas follows:- The accident in this case happened on 5.9.2006. Theinjured claimant Prakash, aged 22 years, working as a buildingconstruction mason, was travelling in the appellant transportcorporation bus. Due to rash and negligent driving by its driver,the bus capsized in a pit. In that accident, several passengerssuffered injuries. The said Prakash suffered injuries to his hand,face, hip and other parts of the body. His left leg wasamputated. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum ofRs.10,00,000/- for the injury suffered in the accident. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examinedas P.W.1. Dr.Ravindran, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-7were marked, the details of which are as follows:-Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector'sInspection Report,Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of accident register,Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of charge sheet,Ex.A-5 is the certified copy of discharge summary,Ex.A-6 is the photo with negative of the claimant andEx.A-7 is the disability certificate. On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondentbefore the Tribunal, Mr.Jayapalan, the conductor of the appellanttransport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No documentwas marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation.4. The Tribunal discussed the oral and documentary evidenceon record and held that the negligence was on the part of thedriver of the appellant transport corporation. There is nomaterial placed on behalf of the appellant transport corporation tocontrovert the same. The finding of negligence on the part of thedriver of the appellant transport corporation bus, as responsiblefor the accident and the injury and the liability fixed on theappellant transport corporation, cannot be and is not seriouslydisputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and thesame is confirmed. The only contention raised by the counsel forthe appellant is on the quantum of compensation.5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, theTribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence of theclaimant and that of the doctor supported by medical records issuedby the hospital in which, the claimant had taken treatment, theperiod of hospitalisation and the disability assessed at 70%,granted the following amount as compensation adopting multipliermethod with interest at 7.5% per annum:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of income, loss of earningcapacity and for disability assessed at70% (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 17 x 70/100 =Rs.2,85,600/-) Rs.2,85,600/-2Transport expenses Rs. 2,000/-3Extra nourishment expensesRs. 2,000/-4Attender chargesRs. 2,000/-5Mental agony, loss of comfort,expectation of life, pain andsuffering, depression and loss ofhappiness due to amputation of leg.Rs. 25,000/-TotalRs.3,16,600/- 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleadedthat the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higherside. Further, the sum of Rs.25,000/- granted towards mentalagony, loss of comfort, expectation of life, pain and suffering,depression and loss of happiness due to amputation of leg ishigher. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to bereduced.7. On going through the award of the Tribunal, this Court isnot inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation on theabove said contention for the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened on 5.9.2006. The injuredclaimant at the time of accident was 22 years old and inprime youth. He was working as building construction mason.(ii) From the records, it is clear that the injured claimant wastreated first at the Government Hospital, Tindivanam, then atChennai Stanley Hospital from 5.9.2006 to 9.10.2006 asinpatient. P.W.2, doctor deposed in his evidence that theclaimant's left leg was amputated. He issued disabilitycertificate assessing disability at 70%. According to thedoctor's evidence, the claimant is unable to do any workindependently as before. The claimant had taken treatment for35 days in the hospital. In this case, no amount was grantedtowards loss of income during the period of treatment andconvalescence. (iii) The amount granted towards transport expenses, extranourishment expenses and attender charges are very very low. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv) Since the left leg was amputated, as a building constructionmason, the claimant will not be able to do his work asbefore. The Tribunal fixed the income of the claimant atRs.2,000/- per month (i.e.) Rs.24,000/- per annum, which ismeagre. Based on the age of the injured claimant, theTribunal adopted 17 multiplier and granted a sum ofRs.2,85,600/-. It has to be seen whether this amount isexcessive.(v) It was stated that the injured claimant was earning a sum ofRs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, has taken themonthly income at Rs.2,000/- per month which is very meagreand the same is not commensurate with minimum wages or livingwages as the accident in this case happened in the year 2006.(vi) The following decisions will have to be kept in mind whilefixing the income of the injured claimant:-(a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. -Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233 (P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he thenwas) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. Inthat case, the accident happened in the year 1995. (b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another – vs. -Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was ofthe view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month.In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased wastaken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999respectively, whereas in the present case, the accidenthappened in the year 2006. Considering the same, the income ofthe injured claimant, can be fixed atleast at Rs.4,000/- permonth. (vii) Due to the amputation of the leg and the other injuriessuffered, the injured claimant will not be able to work andearn as before. The prospects of future income is very muchaffected. Therefore, considering the nature of injury, theoccupation of the injured claimant, the compensation can bearrived at by adopting lesser multiplier. The possibility ofearning by other means without physical exertion has to beconsidered and the appropriate multiplier in this case can befixed as "12" instead of "17". In the case of injury, themultiplier as in the case of death need not be taken vide theDivision Bench decision of this Court in United India InsuranceCo. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ1483. In Paragraph 11 of the decision reads thus:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "11. The following principles emerge from the abovediscussion:(a) In all cases of injury or permanentdisablement 'multiplier method' cannot bemechanically applied to ascertain the futureloss of income or earning power.(b) It depends upon various factors suchas nature and extent of disablement, avocationof the injured and whether it would affect hisemployment or earning power, etc. and if so, towhat extent?(c) (1) If there is categorical evidencethat because of injury and consequentialdisability, the injured lost his employment oravocation completely and has to be idle for therest of his life, in that event loss of incomeor earnings may be ascertained by applying the'multiplier method' as provided under theSecond Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.(2) Even so there is no need to adopt thesame period as that of fatal cases as providedunder the Schedule. If there is no amputationand if there is evidence to show that there islikelihood of reduction or improvement infuture years, lesser period may be adopted forascertainment of loss of income.(d) Mainly it depends upon the avocationor profession or nature of employment beingattended by the injured at the time ofaccident." (emphasis supplied) Therefore, the loss of income due to the injury suffered, forwhich disability is assessed at 70%, will be as follows:- "Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 12 x 70% = Rs.4,03,200/-". In thiscase, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- only. Hence,the compensation is not excessive as contended. (viii) Since the left leg has been amputated and in view of thedecision of the Apex Court in Nagappa – vs. - Gurudayal Singhand others reported in 2003 ACJ 12 (3 Judges), the claimantis entitled to appropriate compensation for future medicaltreatment, like, replacement of the artificial leg. On thathead, the claimant is entitled to a reasonable sum towards https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ future medical expenses for replacement of artificial leg.However, no amount is granted.(ix) The sum of Rs.25,000/- granted towards mental agony, loss ofcomfort, expectation of life, pain and suffering, depressionand loss of happiness due to amputation of leg is justifiedconsidering the gravity of the accident and injury suffered bythe 22 year old youth. (x) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensationgranted in a sum of Rs.3,16,000/- is not excessive ascontended and does not require any further reduction as alsothe interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this casehappened in the year 2006 and the award is of the year 2008. 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 grantedand on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw thesame. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.tsTo1) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai. 2) The District Judge, Thiruvannamalai.(The District Judge, Tiruvannamalai is directed to issueinstructions to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to specify thename of the Court in the award which is omitted to be mentioned inthe award and wherein it is stated that the award is passed by theMotor accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai)1 cc to Mr.V. Ramesh, Advocate, SR. 8259C.M.A.No.616 of 2009CK (CO)kk 6/4