The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Kancheepuram v. J.Sivakumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.3.2009CoramThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKARCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.698 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Kancheepuram. ... Appellant/Respondent vs.J.Sivakumar. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 10.10.2007passed in M.C.O.P.No.572 of 2004 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V),Tiruvallur. For appellant : Mr.V.Ramesh For respondent : Mr.Saravanakumar JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 10.10.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.572 of2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (AdditionalDistrict Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), Tiruvallur. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are asfollows:- The accident in this case happened on 2.6.2004. Theinjured claimant J.Sivakumar, said to be aged 31 years, asilversmith, was travelling on a two wheeler from Tiruvallur toPoondi. The bus belonging to the appellant transport corporationcoming from the opposite direction driven by the driver in a rash andnegligent manner hit the two wheeler. In that accident, the saidSivakumar suffered fracture of right leg and right thigh and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ injuries all over body. He was treated at Government Hospital,Tiruvallur and Stanley Hospital, Chennai for the period from 2.6.2004to 28.6.2004. Once again he was treated from 25.10.2004 to1.12.2004 and for the further period from 18.2.2005 to 11.3.2005.He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for theinjuries suffered in the accident.3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant wasexamined as P.W.1. Mr.Sivalingam, another silversmith was examinedas P.W.2 to speak about the employment and income of the injuredclaimant. Dr.Thiyagarajan was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P-1 to P-10were marked, the details of which are as follows:-Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of FIR dated 2.6.2004, Exs.P-2 to P-4 are the discharge summaries,Ex.P-5 is the accident register dated 2.6.2004, Ex.P-6 is the certified copy of accident register,Ex.P-7 is the certified copy of driving licence,Ex.P-8 is the certified copy of renewal licence,Ex.P-9 is the disability certificate dated 30.7.2007 assessing the disability at 75% andEx.P-10 is the X-Ray. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellanttransport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal.4. The Tribunal in its award stated that the injured claimantwas travelling on a motor cycle from Tiruvallur to Krishnapuram andwhen he was nearing the Tiruvallur Tollgate, the bus bearingRegistration No.TN-32-N-2001 driven in a rash and negligent mannerat a turning dashed against the two wheeler, which resulted in theserious and grievous injuries to the claimant. It is not disputedby the learned counsel for the appellant that even as per the F.I.R.,the rash and negligent driving is on the part of the driver of thebus. Though a plea is taken in the counter-affidavit, appellanttransport corporation has not taken any steps to let in any oral ordocumentary evidence refuting the stand of the claimant. Therefore,the learned counsel for the appellant does not seriously dispute thenegligence and liability. The only serious contention raised by thelearned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 5. The Tribunal in this case discussed the various injuriessuffered by the injured claimant, viz., fracture of the left thigh, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the injuries to the hip joint region and the left knee. It also tookinto consideration the evidence of the doctor P.W.3, who assessed thedifficulties faced by the injured claimant consequent to the injuryand he clearly stated that the injured claimant was suffering pain inboth bones in left leg below knee which were fractured and malunited. He stated that rods were fixed and the flexion of the leftknee is restricted. According to the doctor, the claimant waswalking with a limp and he has to use the stick to support himself.The total disability assessed is 75% as per Ex.P-9. In para 7 of theaward, the details of the medical management given to the claimant isdiscussed and it is set out in the 3 discharge summaries Exs.P-2 toP-4 and the claimant was in hospital for three periods. In thesebackground, considering the age of the injured claimant and theoccupation as silversmith, the Tribunal granted the following amountsas compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:-Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1InjuriesRs. 40,000/-2Treatment and other expensesRs. 10,000/-3Pain and sufferingRs. 60,000/-4Future medical expenses. Rs. 25,000/-TotalRs.1,35,000/- 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contendedthat the sum of Rs.60,000/- granted for pain and suffering andRs.25,000/- for future medical expenses are not justified and in anyevent it is excessive. Therefore, the quantum of compensation hasto be reduced.7. Though such a plea is attractive, on going through the award,this Court is not inclined to interfere with the total compensationawarded for the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened on 2.6.2004. The injuredclaimant was 31 years old at the time of accident. (ii) He suffered three injuries and he was in hospital on threeoccasions. Surgical procedures were done and rods were fixed.The opinion of the doctor states about the serious nature of theinjuries and it is affected in the day-to-day life of the injuredclaimant. (iii) The injured claimant is a silversmith and is a self employed.He had taken treatment for a period of 9 to 12 months. Nocompensation has been granted towards loss of income during theperiod of treatment and convalescence, even though the income was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stated to be Rs.200/- per day as stated by P.W.2, anothersilversmith. Ex.P-8 is the licence for running the silversmithwork. Therefore, the injured claimant is entitled to reasonablecompensation towards loss of income during the period oftreatment and convalescence. (iv) No amount has been granted for excess nutritious food andattender charges. (v) Even for disability assessed at 75%, a meagre sum of Rs.40,000/-alone was granted under the head injuries. For transport, noamount has been granted. (vi) Considering all the above aspects, the excess compensationgranted in one or other heads, can be justified on the variousheads for which compensation was not given. Therefore, the totalcompensation granted in a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- does not requireany further reduction and the heads on which can be suitablymodified as set out above. (vii) As far as interest is concerned, there is no dispute by thecounsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 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 Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),Tiruvallur. 1 CC To Mr.V.Ramesh, Advocate, SR NO.11335 C.M.A.No.698 of 2009sgl(co)pmk/12.5.2009.