Skip to content


Rajakumar Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCMA(MD)No. 484 of 2006
Judge
AppellantRajakumar
RespondentTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited
Excerpt:
motor vehicles act - section 173 -.....programmer. the injured victim filed an application in mcop.no.1089 of 2004, before the motor accident claims tribunal, (principal district judge), tirunelveli, and the tribunal, by considering the nature of injury and the evidences on record, awarded rs.3,00,000/- as total compensation with interest at 9% per annum. the appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal challenging the award passed by the tribunal, on the ground that the award amount fixed by the tribunal is not just and proper and the tribunal failed to consider the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant, more specifically, the fractures. further, the appellant questioned the award, on the ground that the tribunal failed to consider the loss of amenities and pain and suffering and mental agony during treatment.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree made in MCOP.No.1089 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Tirunelveli, dated 28/04/2005.)

1. It is a case of injury caused due to the accident took place on 26.04.2004 about 05.20 p.m on Tirunelveli Tuticorin main road near Vasavappapuram and the injured was aged 36 years at the time of accident and was working as a Computer Programmer. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.1089 of 2004, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Tirunelveli, and the Tribunal, by considering the nature of injury and the evidences on record, awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as total compensation with interest at 9% per annum. The appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal challenging the Award passed by the Tribunal, on the ground that the award amount fixed by the Tribunal is not just and proper and the Tribunal failed to consider the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant, more specifically, the fractures. Further, the appellant questioned the award, on the ground that the Tribunal failed to consider the loss of amenities and pain and suffering and mental agony during treatment period.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed this petition, by stating that the accident took place in the year 2004 and 55% disability fixed by the medical practitioner was accepted by the Tribunal and by adopting Rs.1,000/- for 1% disability, the Tribunal granted Rs.55,000/- towards disability and there was no error in the award passed by the Tribunal. Further, the learned counsel contended that it is the case of injury and the doctor was not examined before the Tribunal by the claimant and in spite of that, the Tribunal accepted the entire disability certificate granted by the Doctor and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is required.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011 (1) TN MAC 537(SC), in the case of Rudra vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and another, in which, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering and Rs.40,000/- was awarded for loss of amenities, but for the medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- alone was awarded in the case cited by the appellant. The victim therein, was a Coolie and sustained grievous injuries and was not in a position to work for his livelihood. For a Coolie, the fracture is to be considered as vital, in view of the fact that the nature of the job requires muscle power and the multiple injuries and fracture will have greater impact. But, in the present case on hand, the appellant/victim is working as a Computer Programmer and further, the injuries were cared and now admittedly, the appellant is working again as a Computer Programmer and getting his monthly income. Therefore, there is no future loss of income as far as the appellant is concerned and hence, the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and dismissed. No costs.


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