Skip to content


The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Ramasamy (died) and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.A(MD)No. 570 of 2006 & M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2013 & C.M.A(MD)No. 637 of 2007 & Cross Objection (MD)No. 24 of 2008 & in C.M.A.(MD)No. 637 of 2007 & M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2008
Judge
AppellantThe Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
RespondentRamasamy (died) and Others
Excerpt:
motor vehicles act, 1988 - section 173 -compensation - whether accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of van, namely, deceased and as such, appellant/transport corporation was to be exonerated - whether quantum of compensation awarded by tribunal was just and fair one - court held - tribunal further found that date on which photographs - series of photographs in form of receipts have been marked and found that bus belonging to appellant/transport corporation driven by driver of bus had caused accident - this court was of considered view that said finding was based on correct appreciation of evidence - this court, on an independent application of mind and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, is of view that there was no error apparent or infirmity.....(prayer: appeal filed under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in m.c.o.p.no.1219 of 2004, dated 26.04.2005, on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal i additional sub court, madurai.) (prayer: appeal filed under section 173 of the motor vehicles act,1988, against the judgment and decree in m.c.o.p.no.12 of 2003,dated 26.10.2005, on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal sub court, sivagangai.) common judgment m. sathyanarayanan, j. 1. the petitions for compensation filed by the claimants revolve around in respect of the accident that took place on 14.01.2002 at 05.45 a.m. near kondamari bridge, madurai - dindigul main road and as such, these civil miscellaneous appeals as well as the cross objection are disposed of by this common.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.1219 of 2004, dated 26.04.2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal I Additional Sub Court, Madurai.)

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2003,dated 26.10.2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sub Court, Sivagangai.)

Common Judgment

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. The petitions for compensation filed by the claimants revolve around in respect of the accident that took place on 14.01.2002 at 05.45 a.m. near Kondamari bridge, Madurai - Dindigul Main Road and as such, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals as well as the Cross Objection are disposed of by this common judgment.

C.M.A(MD)No.570 of 2006:

2. The appellant-Transport Corporation is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1219 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - I Additional Sub Court, Madurai and it was filed by the parents and younger brother of the deceased, namely, Alangaram, who was the driver of the ill-fated Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-P-6429. According to the respondents/ claimants, the deceased was aged about 23 years on the date of the accident and was earning a sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand only) per month by doing business in the name of M/s.Lakshmi Electrical and Hardwards and M/s.Ambal Cabs and was also owning two other vehicles apart from the ill-fated Mahindra Van and was running tourist cabs. The deceased as driving the Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-P-6429 and while he was nearing Kondamari bridge, Madurai - Dindigul Main Road, at about 05.45 a.m., on 14.01.2002, the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-58- N-0218 driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-P-6429 driven by the deceased and as a consequence, the driver of the vehicle, namely, Alangaram died on the spot and one of the occupants of the Van, namely, Madhavan, had sustained injuries. The claimants claimed the compensation of Rs.28,00,750/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Seven Hundred and Fifty only) under the following heads and restricted their claim to a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only):

21(A).PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND EXPENSES:
PART - I
(a) Loss of earning from ---- to -------
(b) Partial loss of earning from ---to -- at the rate of of Rs.--- a day/week---
(c) Transport to HospitalRs. 10,000.00
(d) Extra Nourishment---
(e) Damages to clothings and articlesRs. 6,750.00
(f) Others:Rs. 9,000.00
1. Funeral ExpensesRs. 3,00,000.00
2. Loss of Love and Affection, Support and MentalAnguish and Agony caused to the petitioners
PART - II
(g) Compensation for pain and sufferings---
(h) Compensation for continuing permanent disability, ifany.---
(i) Compensation for the loss of pecuniary benefitscaused to the petitionersRs.24,75,000.00

3. It is the case of respondents/claimants that the deceased was very enterprising and even at an young age, he was carrying on very many businesses, but for the accident, he would have earned very good income by developing the business. However, his life was cut short on account of the tragic accident and therefore, they claimed the above compensation with interest and also costs.

4. The appellant-Transport Corporation who was arrayed as the respondent has filed the counter, stating among other things, that the bus was driven slowly in accordance with traffic regulations for the reason that the devotees of Palani Thandayuthapani Swamy Temple were proceeding by way of Pathayatra and the driver of the Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-P-6429 while attempting to overtake the lorry that came on the opposite direction and on the wrong side, dashed against the bus and as a consequence, the driver of the bus also sustained a fracture on his leg.

5. It is further contended that the driver of the Mahindra Van without any rest was driving throughout day and night and on account of the said fact also, the accident had occurred and therefore, the appellant-Transport Corporation/respondent prayed for exoneration.

6. During the course of the trial, the father of the deceased Alangaram was examined as P.W.1 and an eyewitness was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.29 were marked. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and the Branch Manager of Madurai Rural Branch of the appellant-Transport Corporation was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked.

7. The Tribunal taking note of the deposition of P.W.2 and Ex.P. 1 - F.I.R, found that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and therefore, held that the appellant-Transport Corporation is liable to compensate the respondents/claimants.

8. As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the age of the parents and adopted the multiplier '12' and further found that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) and after deducting Rs.3,550/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only) towards his personal expenses, fixed his monthly income as Rs.11,250/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) and arrived at the loss of income as Rs.16,20,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only) [Rs.11,250/- X 12 X 12].

9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards transportation expenses; a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cremation expenses; a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards mental agony and loss of love and affection to the respondents/claimants and aggregating to a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation and also appor tioned the compensation.

10. Challenging the findings of the Tribunal on negligence as well as quantum, the present appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.570 of 2006.

11. While entertaining the appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.570 of 2006, this Court has granted an interim order of stay on 21.04.2006 and directed the appellant-Transport Corporation to deposit the entire award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1219 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - I Additional Sub Court, Madurai, with a default clause, out of which, the respondents 1 and 2 /claimants 1 and 2 were permitted to withdraw 50% of their respective shares and the share of the minor third respondent/third claimant was directed to be invested in a Nationalised bank initially for a period of three years and renewable periodically thereafter till the disposal of the appeal under reinvestment scheme, vide order dated 19.07.2006 made in C.M.P(MD)No.3315 of 2006 in C.M.A.(MD)No.570 of 2006.

12. The appellant-Transport Corporation, pendency of the appeal, filed M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 to receive the certified copies of the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Sub Court, Sivagangai, filed by one of the occupants of the Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-P-6429, namely, Madhavan, on the ground that in the above cited judgment, it was held that the said Van was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the Transport Corporation was exonerated of the liability.

13. The learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants strongly opposed the said petition by contending that in the absence of plausible reason as to the delay, it cannot be received as the additional documents. Since the said documents support the case of the appellant-Transport Corporation as to the findings rendered on negligence, this Court is inclined to receive the same by way of additional documents. Accordingly, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 in C.M.A. (MD)No.570 of 206 is ordered and consequently, the certified copies of the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Sub Court, Sivagangai, dated 26.10.2005, are marked as Exs.R.4 and R.5 respectively. C.M.A.(MD)No.637 of 2007:

14. One of the occupants of the ill-fated Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-P-6429, who sustained injuries in the above said accident, has filed M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Sub Court, Sivagangai, stating, among other things, that he was aged 19 years on the date of the accident and he was eking out his livelihood as Hotel Cook Master and earning Rs.150/- (Rupees One Hundred and Fifty only) per day and on account of the accident, he suffered a fracture and dislocation and had taken treatment as Inpatient between 14.01.2002 and 28.01.2002 at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and from 28.01.2002 to 27.04.2002 at Jawahar Hospital, Madurai and from 30.05.2002 to 03.06.2002 at the very same Hospital.

15. According to him, the bus owned by the Transport Corporation was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and claimed the compensation of Rs.18,23,500/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand and Five Hundred only) under the following heads, however, restricted to a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only):

21(A).PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND EXPENSES:
PART - I
(a) Loss of earning from 14.01.2002 to till dateRs. 45,000.00
(b) Partial loss of earning from ---to -- at the rate of of Rs.--- a day/week---
(c) Transport to HospitalRs. 8,000.00
(d) Extra Nourishment---
(e) Damages to clothings and articlesRs. 500.00
(f) Others:
1. Medical Expenses (3 Operations)Rs. 3,00,000.00
2. Future Medical ExpensesRs. 2,00,000.00
3. For Attendant's ChargesRs. 50,000.00
4. For Future AttendanceRs. 1,50,000.00
5. Loss of Expectation of LifeRs. 30,000.00
6. Loss of Amenities of LifeRs. 30,000.00
7. For hardship of mental agonyRs. 30,000.00
8. Loss of happiness of lifeRs. 30,000.00
PART - II
(g) Compensation for pain and sufferingsRs. 1,00,000.00
(h) Compensation for continuing permanent disability, ifany.Rs. 3,00,000.00
(i) Compensation for the loss of earning powerRs. 5,00,000.00
TOTALRs.18,23,500.00

16. The Transport Corporation filed the counter taking the very same stand and the Insurance Company who was arrayed as the third respondent, has also filed the counter, stating that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and further contended that the compensation claimed was very high.

17. During the course of the trial, the claimant, namely, Madhavan, was examined as P.W.1 and the Doctor who issued the Disability Certificate was examined as P.W.2 and one Jeyakumar was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.P.1 to P.22 were marked. The driver of the Transport Corporation bus was examined as R.W.1 and the Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.R.1.

18. The Tribunal on consideration of oral and documentary evidence found that the driver of the Mahindra Van had caused the accident and therefore, exonerated the Transport Corporation and mulcted the liability on the insurer of the vehicle, namely, the third respondent and insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal found that on account of the accident, the claimant cannot walk and stand and also sit and is not in a position to have marital relationship and found that he would experience difficulty in attending the call of nature and therefore, assessed the disability at 65% and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards partial and permanent disability; a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) towards loss of income; a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards medical expenses; a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards pain and sufferings; a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards damages to clothes and articles and aggregating to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation.

19. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant filed the present appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.637 of 2007 seeking enhancement. Cross Objection (MD)No.24 of 2008:

20. The third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Sub Court, Sivagangai, has filed Cross Objection (MD)No.24 of 2008, challenging the said finding.

21. The Cross Objector/Insurance Company deposited a sum of Rs.97,833/- (Rupees Ninety Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Three only) on 30.04.2008 and the appellant/claimant, namely, Mathavan, in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Sub Court, Sivagangai, filed M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 in C.M.A.(MD)No.637 of 2007 and this Court, vide order dated 19.08.2014, permitted the appellant/claimant, namely, Mathavan, to withdraw the amount lying to the credit of Cross Objection (MD)No.24 of 2008 in C.M.A.(MD)No.637 of 2007, along with accrued interest, deposited by the Cross Objector/Insurance Company.

C.M.A.(MD)No.570 of 2006:

22. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation in C.M.A.(MD)No.570 of 2006 has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 as well as Exs.R.1 and R.2 and would contend that the oral and documentary evidence would clearly disclose that the Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-P-6429 driven by the deceased Alangaram came on the opposite direction and dashed against the bus and as such, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Transport Corporation.

23. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation that there are no tenable or acceptable documents filed to show that the deceased would have earned a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month and based on surmises and conjectures only, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased.

24. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation has drawn the attention of this Court to Exs.R.1, R.2, R. 4 and R.5 and would submit that in respect of the claim petition filed by one of the occupants of the Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-P-6429, the Tribunal has categorically found that the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation driven by the driver, namely, Muruganantham (R.W.1) did not cause the accident and therefore, directed the insurer of the Mahindra Van to indemnify the claimants and therefore, he prays for setting aside the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.1219 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - I Additional Sub Court, Madurai and allowing the appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.570 of 2006.

25. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants would contend that though the sketch has been marked in this case, it has been marked in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Sub Court, Sivagangai, as Ex.P.3 and the charge sheet has been marked as Ex.P.6 and the said documents would clearly disclose that the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation alone had caused the accident and as such, no reliance can be placed on the additional documents marked as Exs.R.4 and R.5.

26. As regards the quantum, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants that on their behalf, as many as 29 documents were marked and Ex.P.11 - bank pass book; Exs.P.22 to P.24 - Income Tax Returns and Exs.P.28 and P.29 - evidence in proof of purchase of plots, would disclose that even at an young age had earned a very good income, but for the tragic demise on account of the accident, he would have reached high position and earned more income and the Tribunal on correct appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly awarded the compensation and therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.570 of 2006 with exemplary costs.

27. This Court paid it's best attention to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record and also the original records.

28. The questions that arise for consideration in the appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.570 of 2006, are:

(i) Whether the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-P-6429, namely, the deceased Alangaram and as such, the appellant-Transport Corporation is to be exonerated? and

(ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just and fair one?

Question No.(i):

29. The eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and according to him, he was employed as a cleaner and he would categorically depose that the bus driven by R.W.1 Muruganantham had caused the accident on account of his rash and negligent driving of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus and it is also substantiated through Ex.P.1 - F.I.R.

30. This Court, for the purpose of doing complete justice, had also perused Exs.P.3 - sketch and P.6 - charge sheet, marked in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Sub Court, Sivagangai, which is the subject matter of challenge in C.M.A(MD)No.637 of 2007 as well as Exs.R.1 to R.3 marked in the present proceedings, viz., M.C.O.P.No.1219 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - I Additional Sub Court, Madurai.

31. As per Ex.P.3 - sketch [C.M.A.(MD)No.637 of 2007], the Mahindra Van was proceeding from west to east and it was well within the road margin, whereas the bus belonging to the appellant- Transport Corporation was protruding on the other part of the road. The case in Cr.No.7 of 2002 registered in connection with the accident was investigated by Koodalpudur Police Station and they laid the charge sheet under Ex.P.6 marked in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Sub Court, Sivagangai, for the commission of the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C.

32. The appellant-Transport Corporation in the present proceedings marked Exs.R.1 to R.3. As per Ex.R.1, the Branch Manager of the appellant-Transport Corporation has conducted the spot inspection and sent a letter to the jurisdictional police stating that the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation did not cause the accident.

33. A perusal of the photographs marked as Ex.R.2 - series, would disclose that the Mahindra Van was just protruding on the other side of the road. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, the bus was found well within the road margin. As rightly found in the photographs marked in Ex.P.2 - series, the location of the Mahindra Van has not been found and the finding has also been recorded as to whether the Mahindra Van has been removed for the purpose of free flow of traffic and that the Observation Mahazar as well as the sketch have not been marked. The Tribunal further found that the date on which Ex.R.2 - series of photographs in the form of receipts have been marked and therefore, found that the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation driven by R.W.1 had caused the accident.

34. This Court is of the considered view that the said finding is based on correct appreciation of evidence. Therefore, Question No. (i) is answered in negative against the appellant-Transport Corporation.

Question No.(ii):

35. A perusal of the documents marked on behalf of the respondents/claimants would clearly indicate that the deceased was an athlete and had also involved in social service activities in the form of blood donation and apart from the ill-fated Mahindra Van, he owned two other tourist vehicles and also paid Income Tax as evidenced under Exs.P.22 to 24. The deceased was also remitting the amount for the purchase of house plots as evidenced under Exs.P.28 and P.29.

36. The Tribunal found that even at the age of 22 years, the deceased was earning so much, but for the accident, he would have attained the higher position in life and earned good income and therefore, rightly fixed a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as monthly income and after deducting a sum of Rs. 3,550/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only) towards his personal expenses, fixed his monthly income as Rs. 11,250/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) and taking into consideration the age of the parents, has adopted the multiplier '12' arrived at the loss of income as Rs.16,20,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only) [Rs.11,250/- X 12 X 12]. However, after the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in in Sarla Verma v. DTC reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the age of the deceased alone has to be taken into consideration and also the number of members of the family and then, the claimants are bound to get more compensation. However, this Court, taking into consideration the fact that the respondents/claimants did not file any petition for enhancement of the compensation, is inclined to confirm the amount awarded under the head 'loss of income' at Rs.16,20,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only). The Tribunal has awarded the compensation towards transportation charges; cremation expenses and loss of love and affection and the amounts awarded under the said heads appear to be very reasonable.

37. The Tribunal while awarding the compensation of Rs. 16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only), has fixed the rate of interest at 9% per annum and in the considered opinion of this Court, it requires reduction at 7.5% per annum.

38. This Court, on an independent application of mind and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, is of the view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for awarding the compensation and finds no merit and the appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.570 of 2006 deserves dismissal, except to the modification of the interest at 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, Question No.(ii) is answered against the appellant-Transport Corporation.

C.M.A.(MD)No.637 of 2007 and Cross Objection(MD)No.24 of 2008:

39. The following questions arise for consideration in C.M.A. (MD)No.637 of 2007:

(i) Whether the Tribunal is right in exonerating the first respondent-Transport Corporation?

(ii) Whether the compensation awarded is a just and fair one? and

(iii) Whether the Cross Objection filed by the third respondent-Insurance Company is maintainable? Question Nos.(i) and (iii):

40. This Court while disposing of C.M.A.(MD)No.570 of 2006 preferred by the Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.1219 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - I Additional Sub Court, Madurai, filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Alangaram - the driver of the illfated Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-P-6429, has given a finding that the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation driven by R.W.1 - Muruganantham alone has caused the accident and therefore, they are liable to compensate the appellant herein/claimant, namely, Mathavan. Accordingly, Question Nos.(i) and (iii) are answered.

Question No.(ii):

41. A perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1 done on behalf of the Transport Corporation as well as the Insurance Company would reveal that as regards the income earned by the appellant/claimant, namely, Mathavan, as a Hotel Cook Master, no questions have been put to him and admittedly, he suffered injuries on the spinal cord and took treatment in various spells at Government Rajaji Hospital and also in a private hospital, namely, Jawahar Hospitalm, Madurai.

42. P.W.2 - Doctor, on assessment of the disability, fixed 65% and issued the Disability Certificate marked as Ex.P.18 and through P.W.2, the scan report has been marked as Ex.P.19.

43. P.W.2 had opined that on account of the disability suffered, the appellant/claimant cannot walk and sit for a quite long time and has lost sensitivity near the hip and he cannot have marital relationship and he will also find it difficult to answer the call of nature.

44. The Tribunal, taking note of Exs.P.8 and P.9 Discharge Summaries as well as the Disability Certificate marked as Ex.P.18 through P.W.2 - Doctor, has rightly arrived at a finding as to the loss of income at Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only).

45. Insofar as the disability is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) only and as per the practice at that point of time, for each percentage of disability, a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) will be awarded and accordingly, a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal is to be enhanced to Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand only). Under Exs.P.13 and P.14, the appellant/claimant has spent a sum of Rs.1,01,810/- (Rupees One Lakh One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten only) and a sum of Rs. 46,467.50 (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Seven and Paise Fifty only). Under Ex.P.21 - series, the appellant/claimant had spent a sum of Rs.15,504.30 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and Four and Paise Thirty only) and thus, he has spent a sum of Rs.1,63,781.80 (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty One and Paise Eighty only). However, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and therefore, it requires enhancement in respect of the balance amount, to the tune of Rs. 1,13,781.80 (Rupees One Lakh Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty One and Paise Eighty only). The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards pain and sufferings and this Court, taking into consideration the long period of treatment as Inpatient, coupled with the disability suffered by the appellant/claimant, which may last in all probabilities till his life time, is inclined to award further sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) for transportation charges as he was taking treatment as Outpatient and continued to require treatment and therefore, aggregating to a sum of Rs.3,13,781.80 (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty One and Paise Eighty only) towards enhancement under the above said heads, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant is entitled to get compensation as follows:

Sl.

No.

Heads

Amount

awarded by

Tribunal

(Rs.)

Amount

enhanced by

this Court

(Rs.)

Total

(Rs.)

1

Partial and Permanent Disability

50,000.00

15,000.00

65,000.00

2

Loss of Income

40,000.00

Nil.

40,000.00

3

Medical Expenses

50,000.00

1,13,781.80

1,63,781.80

4

Pain and Sufferings

5,000.00

20,000.00

25,000.00

5

Damages to Clothes and Articles,

Transportation Charges, Extra

Nourishment, etc.

5,000.00

15,000.00

20,000.00

Grand Total

3,13,781.80

Accordingly, Question No.(ii) is answered in favour of the appellant/claimant.

46. In the result,

(i) C.M.A.(MD)No.570 of 2006 is dismissed, confirming the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1219 of 2004, dated 26.04.2005, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal I Additional Sub Court, Madurai. The respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the balance amount of their respective shares forthwith, less the amount already withdrawn by them. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed;

(ii) C.M.A.(MD)No.637 of 2007 is allowed and the first respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.3,13,781.80 (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty One and Paise Eighty only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount forthwith, less the amount already withdrawn by him. Further, the third respondent-Insurance Company/Cross Objector is entitled to recover the amount already deposited by it to the credit of Cross Objection (MD)No.24 of 2008 from the first respondent-Transport Corporation. No costs; and

(iii) Cross Objection (MD)No.24 of 2008 is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //