AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Mahadevan, J.—The injured Claimant seeks enhancement of Compensation awarded in M.C.O.P. No.393 of 2008 by filing C.M.A. No.179 of 2010 and the Insurance Company has filed C.M.A. No.1642 of 2010 challenging the Compensation awarded therein.
The case of the Claimant before the Tribunal was that on 17.6.2007 when he was riding a bicycle at E.V.N. Road, Erode, the Lorry belonging to the Second Respondent and insured with the Third Respondent in C.M.A. No.179 of 2010, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Claimant causing grievous injuries to him and hence, he claimed a Compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
The Insurance Company contested the Claim Petition claiming contributory negligence on part of the Claimant and contended that the claim is an exaggerated one.
On the side of the Claimant, four witnesses were examined and 23 documents were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the Insurance Company.
On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found the negligence on the part of the Driver of the Lorry, fixed the liability upon the owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle and directed the Insurance Company to pay a Compensation of Rs.17,27,150/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.
Learned Counsel for the Claimant would submit that the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the injuries sustained by the Claimant and the disability which was assessed at 100% and the Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs.5,000/- alone without considering the documentary evidence produced by the Claimant to prove his income and the Tribunal has also erred in not considering the Future Prospects and the Tribunal has adopted a lesser Multiplier and hence, craved indulgence of this Court. He relied upon the decisions in G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary v. E. Srinivas,2013 (2) TN MAC 76 (SC); and Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another,2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), in support of his contention.
Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the Compensation awarded under various heads is already on the higher side, that the Permanent Disability fixed at 100% is excessive and the Tribunal ought to have deducted ? towards Personal Expenses and hence, the Compensation need not be enhanced and instead, it is required to be reduced.
Having gone through the entire materials available on record, this Court finds the Tribunal has clearly analysed the documentary evidence corroborated by the oral evidence of the Doctor to fix the disability at 100% having found that the Claimant has attained a vegetative state and hence, it needs no interference.
For such disability and the impact of the injuries and surgery underwent by him, the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable Compensation and the Tribunal has given proper reasoning for awarded Compensation under each head. But, the Tribunal has considered only a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards monthly income when PW3, Employer of the Claimant was examined and Ex.A18-Salary Certificate was marked by the Claimant to prove that he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, there is no question of deducting amount towards Personal Expenses.
In the decision reported in G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary v. E. Srinivas,2013 (2) TN MAC 76 (SC), a Division Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court, while enhancing the Compensation in a similar case, extracted the findings rendered in Ibrahim v. Raju,2011 (2) TN MAC 641(SC), which reads as follows:
''The sufferings of the dependants of those, who are killed in motor accidents and the survivors, who are disabled are manifold. Sometime these can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is disabled as a result of road accident, the cost of treatment, care and rehabilitation is likely to be very high. ... At times, the delay in disposal of the claim cases and litigation expenses make the Award of Compensation meaningless for survivors of the accidents and/or families of the victims.''
In the light of the above decision, I find no hesitation to hold that the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the case on hand needs no reduction. Instead, I find that the right Multiplier ought to have been adopted considering the age of the Claimant would be 18 as held in Sarla Verma''s case. Accordingly, the Loss of Earning power is enhanced to Rs.10,80,000/- (Rs.60,000 x 18) from Rs.9,60,000/-. I find that the Award needs no enhancement on any other head. The difference amount awarded by this Court would carry interest at 7.5% per annum.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire Award amount with interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal deducting the amount already deposited by them within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment and on such deposit, the Claimant is entitled to withdraw the same by filing appropriate Application.
In the result, C.M.A. No.179 of 2010 is allowed in part to the extent indicated above and C.M.A. No.1642 of 2010 as well as the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.
C.M.A. 179/2010 allowed in part - C.M.A. 1642/2010 & M.P. dismissed