AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 30.09.1996, made in M.C.O.P.
No. 1243 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Court), Erode.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The claimant was injured in a motor accident on 05.05.1992 at 12 Noon. The claimant was a pillion rider in a TVS-50 bearing Registration No.
TAN 9842. The vehicle was driven by one Duraiswamy. While they were nearing Modakurichi-Elumathur Road, a van bearing Registration No.
TAQ 6566 came from behind at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle in which the claimant was traveling. Due
to the accident, the claimant suffered fractures and grievous injuries all over the body. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-
before the Tribunal. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1)Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver or not?
(2)Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation or not? If so, what is the amount payable and from whom?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of
the van driver and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,64,184/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the order, the
Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and stated that
it is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and
the same has to be set aside.
Learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent / claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence
available on record and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. It is therefore submitted that the order passed of the Tribunal is in
accordance with law and the same should be confirmed.
Heard the counsel. On behalf of the claimant, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 were marked. On
behalf of the Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is one
Duraiswamy, who is the rider of the two-wheeler. P.W.3 is the Doctor. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the Observation Mahazar.
Ex.P3 is the Accident Register. Ex.P4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report. Ex.P5 is the Rough Sketch. Ex.P6 is the Charge Sheet. Ex.P7 is
the judgment in C.C. No. 384/93. Ex.P8 is the Insurance Agreement. Ex.P9 is the Salary Certificate. Ex.P10 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.P12 is
the receipt given to the claimant for the treatment taken in LKM Hospital, Erode. Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 are the medical bills. Ex.P15 is the Disability
Certificate. Ex.P16 is the x-ray. After considering these oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the
accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and
evidence. It is therefore confirmed.
The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,64,184/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation
are as under:
Rupees
Loss of earning power 92,700/-
Permanent disability 10,000/-
Medical expenses 48,734/-
Loss of income during the treatment period 6,000/-
Transport to hospital 1,000/-
Damage to clothing and articles 250/-
Extra nourishment 500/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
--------------
Total... 1,64,184/-
==============
The claimant is a medical representative. After the accident, he took treatment from 05.05.1992 to 29.05.1992. It was claimed that the claimant
was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. P.W.3 is the Doctor, who examined the claimant and stated that the claimant sustained fracture of the right leg
and assessed the disability at 50%. The Tribunal fixed the disability at 45%, but awarded only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards permanent disability.
Instead, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 92,700/- towards loss of earning power. The age of the claimant was 28 years at the time of accident.
Hence the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 1,000/- and calculated the annual income at Rs. 12,000/- (Rs. 1,000/- x
12). After adopting the multiplier of 18 and also taking into consideration of 45% disability, determined the loss of earning power at Rs. 92,700/-
as follows:
Rs. 12,000/- x 18 = Rs. 2,16,000/-
45% of Rs. 2,16,000/- = Rs. 97,200/-
The counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law
and that only the nature of injuries and disability alone should be taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration of the nature of
injuries and also the disability, I feel that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more towards permanent disability. After taking into consideration the
disability at 45%, it would be appropriate and reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 65,000/- more towards permanent disability. Accordingly the
amount awarded towards permanent disability is modified from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-. In view of awarding Rs. 75,000/- towards
permanent disability, the amount awarded towards loss of earning power at Rs. 97,200/- is unwarranted and accordingly the same is set aside.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 48,734/- towards medical expenses. The claimant has taken treatment in the hospital. Ex.P12 is the receipt
given to the claimant for the treatment taken in LKM Hospital, Erode. Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 are the medical bills. Relying on these evidence, the
Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs. 48,734/- towards medical expenses. It is an actual expenditure and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. There is no dispute that the claimant was taking treatment for a
period of 25 days in L.K.M.Hospital, Erode. Hence I feel that the amount awarded towards loss of income during the treatment period at Rs.
6,000/- is reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards transport to hospital, which is very low
and meagre and it would be appropriate and reasonable to award a further sum of Rs. 1,000/-. Accordingly, the amount awarded towards
transport to hospital is modified from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 250/- towards damage to clothing and
articles, Rs. 500/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering, which are very reasonable and hence they are
confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees
Permanent disability 75,000/-
Medical expenses 48,734/-
Loss of income during the treatment period 6,000/-
Transport to hospital 2,000/-
Damage to clothing and articles 250/-
Extra nourishment 500/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/-
--------------
Total... 1,37,484/-
==============
(Rounded off to Rs. 1,37,500/-)
Therefore the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs. 1,37,500/- as against the compensation of Rs. 1,64,184/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 12% p.a. from the date of petition is excessive. After taking into consideration the fall of
interest rate over the years, I feel that it would be appropriate and reasonable to reduce the interest rate to 9% p.a. from the date of petition.
It is stated that the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal as per the order of this Court dated
22.10.1998. Hence, the claimant is permitted to withdraw Rs. 1,37,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the
amount if any already withdrawn. The Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. No costs.