The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Office, Karur vs Rengadoss and another

R. Sudhakar, J.—The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Karur, has filed the appeal challenging the award dated 31.1.2007

passed in M.C.O.P. No. 927 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Judge), Salem. It is a case of injury. The

brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 21.12.2003 at 8.00 a.m. The first respondent Rengadoss, aged 60

years, was standing next to his vehicle. At that point of time, the car belonging to the appellant, driven by the appellant''s driver in a rash and

negligent manner, hit the first respondent Rengadoss. In that accident, the first respondent suffered grievous injuries and was admitted to

Government Hospital, Salem. He had taken treatment for five days for the injuries sustained by him. He claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 4

lakhs stating that he was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as an accounts writer at the time of accident.

In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W. 1. One Venkatesan was examined as P.W.2. One Kuppusamy was

examined as P.W.3. Doctor S. Elangovan was examined as P.W.4. Documents Exs.A-1 to A-12 were filed, the details of which, as mentioned in

the award, are as follows:-

Ex.A-1 is the FIR dated 21.12.2003,

Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate dated 26.12.2003,

Ex.A-3 is the charge-sheet dated 17.1.2004,

Ex.A-4 is the Motor Vehicle''s Inspector''s Inspection Report dated 24.12.2003,

Ex.A-5 is the order of J.M. No. 4, Salem dated 17.2.2004,

Ex.A-6 is the medical bills (3 numbers) dated 13.2.2004,

Ex.A-7 is the discharge summary dated 10.1.2004,

Ex.A-8 is the hospital I.P. Record Book dated 26.12.2003,

Exs.A-9 and A-10 are the salary certificates dated 12.12.2006,

Ex.A-11 is the disability certificate and

Ex.A-12 is the X-Rays.

No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of appellant, the second respondent before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal based on the F.I.R. lodged against the driver of the vehicle and the Ex.A-3 charge-sheet and also taking note of Ex.A-5, the order

of the Judicial magistrate No. 4, Salem, in which the driver of the offending vehicle had paid the fine amount in criminal proceedings, accepting his

guilt, came to conclusion that the appellant and the respondent No. 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the injured

claimant.

As far as the compensation is concerned based on the evidence of P.W.4, the doctor, the nature of injury, which is fracture of the left leg and

shoulder and based on Ex.A-8, the Hospital inpatient record book, the Tribunal granted compensation for pain and suffering, for disability

assessed at 20%, for extra nutrition, transport, loss of income during the period of treatment, etc. The employment of the injured claimant was

established by Exs.A-9 and A-10. Considering all these factors, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5%

per annum:-

Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the

Tribunal

For loss of income (2 Rs. 4,000/-

months)

For pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-

Medical bills Rs. 7,000/-

For discomfort (20%) Rs. 25,000/-

Nutrition Rs. 5,000/-

Transport Rs. 5,000/-

Total Rs. 66,000/-

In this appeal two grounds that has been taken is that the vehicle was used by the then Chairman of the District Panchayat on a Sunday and the

personal driver of the Chairman drove the vehicle and caused the accident and therefore, the appellant is not liable to compensate the claimant.

This plea was taken in the counter-affidavit, but no oral or documentary evidence was let in to support such plea. The accident and the injury

caused to the claimant by the vehicle in question is not disputed. In the ground No. 3, it is stated that the appellant was not the occupant of the

vehicle. Such a strange plea ought not to be taken by the appellant herein, merely for the purpose of filing the appeal. On going through the grounds

of appeal, it is apparent that without any application of mind, trivial and irrelevant matters have been taken as legal issues. Is not the Chairman of

the District Panchayat, a peoples representative answerable to the claimant in this case? The Chief Executive Officer of the Panchayat having taken

such a plea should have let in oral and documentary evidence to bring the offending person to light if he really wanted to disown his liability. The

approach of the appellant is callous and the attitude disheartening. The Tribunal''s order is so barren and bereft of reason on the plea taken by

either side. The Tribunal has also not dealt with the issues properly and the order is passed cursorily leading to filing of this appeal.

As far as compensation is concerned, based on the injury suffered, medical treatment taken as inpatient in Government hospital which is

supported by Ex.A-7 discharge summary and Ex.A-8 hospital LP. Record book, the Tribunal was justified in granting the compensation on

various heads extracted above. Though the nomenclature used by the Tribunal may not be appropriate, but the quantum of compensation is

justified. Since the disability has been assessed at 25% by the doctor and was reduced to 20% by the Tribunal, the amount of Rs. 25,000/-

granted for discomfort, it is modified and granted towards disability and the amount is justified. The sum of Rs. 20,000/- granted towards pain and

suffering is also reasonable in view of the nature of injury which is fracture of the leg and shoulder. Reasonable amounts have been granted for

extra nutrition and transport expenses and for medical bills as per Ex.A-6. In the grounds of appeal, the amounts granted on these heads are

challenged, but, however, without any basis or justification. Therefore, this Court is unable to find any good reason to interfere with the quantum of

compensation as well the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2003 and the award was passed in the year

2007. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks'' time to

deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. There will be no order as to costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.