AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Nagamuthu, J.—This appeal has been filed against the award made in MCOP No. 40/1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. The Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants. The 1st Respondent is the wife and the Respondents 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. The 4th Respondent is the driver of the vehicle which involved in the accident and owned by the 1st Appellant.
This appeal was originally filed by two Appellants, of whom the 1st Appellant is the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd Appellant is the insurance company. When the appeal was taken up today, learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that this appeal is not pressed insofar as it relates to the 2nd Appellant, the insurance company and accordingly this appeal is dismissed in respect of the 2nd Appellant. This appeal is only in respect of the quantum of compensation.
According to the case of the claimants, the deceased sustained injuries in the accident which happened on 01.05.1995. As a matter fact, it is in evidence that the deceased sustained the following injuries.
Severe head injury.
Sutured wound at the left frontal region.
Full thickness cut injury, full breadth of pinna left ear.
Multiple abrasions left supraclavicular.
Injury at left lower leg anterior aspect.
Grievous injury on the left shoulder.
Fracture in spine of scapula left.
Claiming compensation for the said injuries, the deceased Mr. Rathinasamy Thagamani filed the present MCOP before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, though he calculated the same at Rs. 22,25,000/-, as compensation. Even during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, according to the claimants, the deceased was still undergoing treatment continuously for the injuries. While so, according to the claimants, he succumbed to the injuries on 07.10.2000. Thereafter, the claimants were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased in the claim petition.
It was contended before the Tribunal by the claimants that the deceased was working as Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories at Madurai during the relevant point of time. His monthly salary was Rs. 17,173/-. His disability has been assessed at 75%, according to the doctors. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, five witnesses were examined, besides marking of 44 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-44. On the side of the Appellants, no witness was examined and no document was exhibited. Having considered all the above materials, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- as compensation. Challenging the same, the Appellant is now before this Court with this appeal.
A perusal of the award of the Tribunal would go to show that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,75,000/- towards loss of love and affection and loss of income to the claimants on account of the death of the deceased. This award is very seriously challenged by the Appellant on the ground that the deceased did not die out of the injuries sustained in the accident. In order to appreciate the said contention, we have gone through the oral as well as the documentary evidence let in on the side of the claimants. But, we are at a loss to find any evidence to the effect that the death was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Though the learned Counsel for the claimants would try to say that from the evidence of P.W.5, the Doctor, it can be inferred that the deceased should have died only due to the injuries sustained, we are not persuaded by the said argument. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.5 would go to show that he has only spoken about the injuries sustained by the deceased and the treatment given on two occasions in the hospital. As a matter of fact, during cross examination, he has categorically stated that he cannot offer any opinion in respect of the cause of death. Thus, absolutely, there is no evidence in respect of the cause of death. When that be so, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal was not right in awarding a compensation of Rs. 6,75,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection and loss of income to the family. This part of the award amount, therefore, needs to be interfered with.
Now coming to the other heads under which various amount have been awarded, towards transport charges to hospital, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5,000/-. This, in our considered opinion, needs to be enhanced, since the deceased was undergoing treatment for a long time which is evident from various medical records produced in evidence and that of the evidence of P.W.5. Therefore, under this head, we are of the view that granting Rs. 50000/- shall be the just compensation. Then, for extra nourishment the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5000/- alone. This also, in our considered opinion, is not just compensation. Going by the nature of injuries and the disability sustained by the deceased, we are of the view that claimants would have spent more amount on this account. Therefore, awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under this head, in our considered opinion, shall be the just compensation. In respect of loss of income to the deceased while he was alive, in our view the tribunal ought to have awarded compensation. It is in evidence that the deceased was on leave while he was taking treatment. Apart from that, he has suffered huge pain and sufferings. Under these two heads, putting together, we are of the view that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 70,000/-. Then a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges should also be awarded. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,65,000-, which is based on Exs.P.8 to P-20, 22 and 37 to 39. In this regard, there is no serious controversy before this Court. In respect of 74% disability sustained by the deceased, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1,12,500/- under this head. Therefore, putting together all the above amount, the claimants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,57,500/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 5,60,000/- To this extent, the award of the Tribunal needs to be modified.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the tribunal is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 9,50,000/-, there shall be an award for Rs. 5,60,000/-, with interest as granted by the Tribunal, with proportionate costs. The claimants shall apportion the said amount in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Connected M.P.(MD) No. 3097 of 2005 is closed.