Judgment · High Court

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 03.09.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A(MD)No.446 of 2006 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)Limited, represented through its Managing Director, Madurai - 625 010 ... Appellant/Respondent .vs.S.Kannan ... Respondent/Petitioner (Claimant)PRAYER:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree, dated 18.04.2005passed in M.C.O.P.No.1832 of 2002, on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal(IV Additional Sub-Court), Madurai. For appellant : M/s.Rajnish Pathiyil For respondent : M/s.D.Venkatesh JUDGMENT The Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award, dated 18.04.2005, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1832 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal( IVth Additional Sub-Court), Madurai.2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 31.03.2002. Theinjured/claimant, 28 year old, Kannan, proprietor of S.M.Candle works, suffered the following injuries in the accident:

Head injury with pelvio fracture2. Tenderness over the right ingunial region3. Bleeding per urethraHe was initially treated at Government Hospital, Madurai and then at Jawahar Hospital, Madurai from 31.03.2002 to 12.05.2002. As against Rs.5lakhs claimed by the injured/claimant, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with 9% interest. Sl.No.Head Amount granted by the Tribunal1disabilityRs. 40,000/-2Loss of income(earning power)Rs. 30,000/-3loss of matrimonial lifeRs. 40,000/- 4medical expenses including future Rs.2,75,000/- 5pain and sufferingRs. 20,000/- 6extra nourishmentRs. 10,000/- 7totalRs.4.15,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

In appeal, it is contended that for the 40% disability, a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been granted. Therefore, the further amount ofRs.30,000/- awarded towards loss of earning power is not justified. Healso pleaded that interest granted at 9% is on the higher side. 4. The learned counsel for the claimant stated that the nature of injury is so grievous that even now the injured claimant is suffering due to the injury of Urethra and there is difficulty as the claimant passing urine by external method. He also suffered head injury and therefore, his earning capacity is greatly affected consequent to the loss of mobility due to the aforesaid injury and treatment. 5. The major compensation granted by the tribunal is only towards medical bills. In fact, the claimant should have been granted higher compensation considering his young age and the disability that he suffered. Due to the injury, he would be suffering from loss of physical strength and that would affect his earning capacity to a great extent. The sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded towards loss of income can be granted as one component as loss of earning capacity due to the disability. Sincethe compensation granted by the tribunal on various heads other than medical expenses are meagre, considering the period of treatment and the grievous nature of injury, the marginally higher rate of interest need not be disturbed as the nature of injury warrants higher compensation. Hence this Court finds no reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation as well as the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Finding no merits, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (Crl. side)/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarToThe IV Additional Subordinate Judge, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai. + 1 cc to M/s.Rajnish Pathiyil, Advocate, SR No.33882+ 1 cc to M/s.D.Venkatesh, Advocate, SR No.33974 Judgment made in C.M.A(MD)No.446 of 2006 03.09.2010vsnRJ/6.1.112p/4c