AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Karuppiah
The appellant has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the quantum of compensation passed in judgment and decree dated 2.6.2008
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Namakkal in MCOP.No.617 of 2005 for the injuries caused to the first
respondent/petitioner in the road traffic accident on 5.1.2001. The first respondent/petitioner has filed claim petition claiming compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him by contending that on 5.1.2001 at about 8.30 pm, near Ellaikaruppu Kovil, Unniyur, Trichy
District, while he was going on the left side of the road, the second respondent''s Tractor bearing Regn. No. TN 28 B-7753, came in the opposite
direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him and due to the accident he sustained injuries and hence
claimed compensation from the second respondent and appellant who are owner and insurer of the abovesaid vehicle.
The owner of the vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal and also no appearance before this Court. On the side of the appellant, who is
the second respondent before the Tribunal, has denied the manner of accident as alleged in the petition and also denied the nature of injuries,
disability and other factors and contended that the amount of compensation claimed on various heads are highly excessive and exorbitant.
Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant/1st respondent, the petitioner himself deposed as PW.1 and also marked Ex.P1-copy of FIR,
Ex.P2-copy of wound certificate, Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector''s report, Ex.P4-copy of chargesheet, Ex.P5-copy of criminal court judgment,
Ex.P6- copy of rough sketch and Ex.P7-medical bills, but on the side of the appellant-insurance company has not examined any witness and not
marked any documents.
Considering the abovesaid oral and documentary evidence of the PW.1, who is the injured petitioner and also Ex.P1-copy of FIR, Ex.P3-
Motor Vehicle Inspector''s report, Ex.P4-copy of chargesheet, Ex.P5-copy of criminal court judgment and Ex.P6-copy of rough sketch and also
considering the fact that no contra evidence on the side of the respondents, the Tribunal has held that the accident had occurred only due to rash
and negligent driving of the second respondent vehicle''s driver and hence owner and insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay compensation and
awarded Rs.50,000/- for injuries, Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- for extra nourishment, Rs.5000/- for transport expenses,
Rs.50,000/- for loss of earning, Rs.2,880/- for medical expenses and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,37,880/-. In this appeal, the second
respondent-insurance company has not challenged the abovesaid finding regarding negligence and liability. This appeal is filed by the
appellant/insurance company only questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal by stating that it is excessive and exorbitant.
The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in granting Rs.1,37,880/- as huge compensation without any
basis and particularly, the Tribunal has erred in awarding an excessive amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of injuries and also erred in awarding
a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of earning power in the absence of material evidence or expert opinion and the Tribunal has failed to consider
the fact that the first respondent has not produced proper medical records to substantiate the injuries sustained and treatment given and also
contended that the Tribunal has erred in granting excessive amount under the head of pain and suffering, extra nourishment and transportation and
therefore requested to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant has contended that considering the age, avocation and nature of injuries, disability and
other factors, the Tribunal has correctly awarded compensation on various heads and therefore no need to interfere with the abovesaid finding of
the Tribunal.
Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material records.
Before the Tribunal, the first respondent who is the claimant in the petition himself deposed as PW.1 and also marked Ex.P1-copy of FIR,
Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector''s report, Ex.P4-copy of chargesheet, Ex.P5-copy of criminal court judgment, Ex.P6-copy of rough sketch on the
side of claimant but no oral and documentary evidence on the side of the side of appellant/insurance company. The Tribunal has discussed the
abovesaid oral and documentary evidence and correctly come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the first respondent''s vehicle and hence the appellant/second respondent-insurance company, as insurer of the vehicle is
liable to pay compensation. Admittedly, the appellant has not challenged the abovesaid finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence and liability but
only challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive and therefore no need to interfere with the finding regarding
negligence and liability aspects.
With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- for injuries, Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering,
Rs.10,000/- for extra nourishment, Rs.5000/- for transport expenses, Rs.50,000/- for loss of earning, Rs.2,880/- for medical expenses and total
compensation of Rs.1,37,880/- has been awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum.
The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a separate amount of Rs.50,000/- under the
head of injuries and also awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of earning power without production of any proper medical records to
substantiate the injuries sustained and treatment taken and therefore requested to reduce the award amount.
It is not a dispute and also from oral evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P2, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:
Fracture medial.
Left proximal tibia and injuries
Laceration 5 x 3 cm over left cheek
Multiple abrasions over forehead
Abrasion right forearm
Abrasion over nose and
7.Contusion (scalp).
The learned counsel for the respondents has not denied the abovesaid fact that the petitioner has sustained one grievous injury and also six other
simple injuries as stated in Ex.P2 wound certificate. But on the side of the first respondent/claimant, has not examined any doctor to prove the
disability suffered by the petitioner due to the abovesaid injuries.
Admittedly, as already stated, the first respondent/petitioner has sustained one grievous injury and also six other simple injuries and taken
treatment for 30 days as inpatient but petitioner has not proved the disability sustained by examining Doctor or production of doctor certificate.
The petitioner was 27 years old at the time of accident. Considering the age, injuries, period of treatment and the medical bills produced by the
petitioner, I am of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal on various heads are highly excessive as correctly contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant-insurance company. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/2nd respondent, the petitioner is not
entitled to Rs.50,000/- awarded for permanent disability, since the petitioner has not examined the doctor and also not produced any disability
certificate to prove the abovesaid fact and further, the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded under the head of grievous injury and other injuries also
excessive considering the injuries, treatment and other factors and hence it is to be reduced to Rs.30,000/- from Rs.50,000/-. With regard to the
compensation for pain and suffering, the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.20,000/- and therefore no need to interfere with the abovesaid
amount. For extra-nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- which is very high considering the nature of injuries and hence it is to be
reduced as Rs.7,000/-. With regard to the transport expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-. Considering the period of treatment and
other factors, the above aid amount is to be increased as Rs.10,000/- from Rs.5,000/-. For medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.2,880/- as per Ex.P7-medical bills, but it should be rounded off as Rs.3,000/-.
From the above said discussion, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced as under:-
For grievous injuries Rs.30,000/-.
For pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-
For extra nourishment Rs. 7,000/-
For transport expenses Rs.10,000/-
For medical expenses Rs. 3,000/-
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand
only) from Rs.1,37,880/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. It is informed that already
Rs.1,00,000/- has been deposited by the appellant, in which, 50% of the deposited amount has been already withdrawn by the first respondent. In
the above circumstances, the first respondent/petitioner is permitted to withdraw the balance in reduced award amount and the appellant/second
respondent is permitted to withdraw the excessive amount, if any paid by the appellant-insurance company. No costs.