AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hari Paranthaman, J.
The appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2007 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1652 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Tirunelveli, wherein, compensation of Rs. 1,32,153 was awarded for multiple injuries including head injury suffered by the minor first respondent. The accident is not disputed. The accident had taken place due to the fault of the driver of the appellant herein. The records viz., disability certificate, wound certificate, x-ray, C.T. Scan and discharge summary are also produced. The first respondent minor suffered fracture in temporal bone in his left head. He was treated in Sundaram Arulraj Hospital, Tuticorin as in-patient for a period of 25 days from 8.1.2005 to 1.2.2005. He has also taken treatment at Surya Hospital, Chennai as per Ex. P7. As per doctor P.W.3, who issued disability certificate Ex. P49, the minor suffered 25% of disability. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, awarded Rs. 1,32,153 as compensation under various heads as follows:
On perusal of the award, I am of the view that the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,000 per percentage of disability and accordingly, the same would come to Rs. 25,000 and hence, the same need not call for interference. Further, as per the documents Exs. P9, P10 and P51, the minor respondent incurred Rs. 75,653 for treatment and the Tribunal, after perused the same, awarded the same towards medical bills.
As per the disability certificate, the respondent suffered fracture in his left head temporal bone and he was admitted as inpatient for 25 days in Sundaram Arulraj Hospital, Tuticorin and hence, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,000 towards pain and suffering and awarded Rs. 5,000 for mental agony, Rs. 3,500 for extra nourishment and Rs. 3,000 for transport. Perusing the same, in my view there is no infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal. In my view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive. I do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal and hence, the appeal is rejected and the same is dismissed. No costs. Since the first respondent/claimant is minor, his mother and guardian Arockia Viji Golda Sopia, is permitted to withdraw the interest on the award amount deposited before the Tribunal, once in three months directly from the Bank.