AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—The appeal is preferred by the Appellant against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.1998 made in MCOP No. 1031 of 1995 on the file of the learned II District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichirapalli.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The injured-Thirupathi, the first Respondent herein, met with motor traffic accident that took place on 20.09.1994 at about 4.00 p.m. He was a pillion rider in a scooter bearing Registration No. TDY-2713. The rider of the scooter was one Meyyappan, the friend of the injured. They were proceeding in the Trichy-Madurai Road. When they reached near Edamalaippatipudur near Pudu Street, a jeep, belonging to the Appellant, bearing Registration No. TN-37-G-0006 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the scooter. Due to the said impact, the injured-Thirupathi was thrown out from the scooter and sustained grievous and multiple injuries all over the body. The injured-claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- before the Tribunal. The Appellant resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
Who is responsible for the accident?
Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the drivers of both the jeep and also the scooter are responsible for the accident, and accordingly fixed 50% of the liability on the driver of the jeep/the second Respondent herein and the Appellant herein, and another 50% of the liability on the third and fourth Respondents herein, who are the owner of the scooter and the Insurance Company under whom the scooter was insured, respectively, and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,04,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees Loss due to 38% disability 40,000/- Loss of income 54,000/- Medical expenses, extra nourishment and transport 5,000/- Pain and suffering 5,000/- ------------ 1,04,000/- ============
According to the fixation of liability, the liability of the Appellant works out to Rs. 26,000/-. Aggrieved by that award, the Appellant has filed the present appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without any basis and justification. It is further submitted that the injured-claimant sustained only injuries and hence the Tribunal ought not to have awarded the compensation as stated above. He further submitted that when the Tribunal had already awarded Rs. 54,000/- towards loss of income, it ought not to have awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards loss due to 38% disability.
In spite of notice served on the Respondents, there is no representation on behalf of the Respondents.
Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to P14 were marked. On the side of the Appellant, the driver of the jeep-Sethukumar was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. P.W.1 is the rider of the scooter. P.W.2 is the injured-claimant. P.W.3 is Dr. Mohammed Nijamudeen. Ex.P3 is the copy of the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Court. Ex.P4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report. Ex.P5 is the Wound Certificate. Ex.P6 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.P7 is the O.P. Chit. Ex.P8 are the series of medical bills. Ex.P9 is the x-ray. Ex.P10 is the Disability Certificate. Ex.P13 is the copy of the First Information Report. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the liability at 50% on the driver and owner of the jeep, the second Respondent and the Appellant, respectively and also another 50% on the owner of the scooter and the Insurance Company in which the scooter was insured, the third and fourth Respondents, respectively. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence is a question of fact and it is also based on valid materials and evidence. Hence the same is confirmed.
The injured was 27 years old at the time of accident. He is an agricultural coolie. He was examined as P.W.2. In his evidence, it is stated that he was earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Further in his evidence, it is stated that only the driver of the jeep caused the accident. Due to the accident he sustained grievous multiple injuries all over the body and also he sustained a fracture in his right leg. Also, he was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Trichy and later he was referred to Ramu Ortho Hospital, Pudukottai District. P.W.3 is the Doctor, who determined the disability of the claimant at 38%. Ex.P10 is the Disability Certificate. Ex.P9 is the X-ray. It is further stated in his evidence that he is unable to do the work as before. After considering the above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 54,000/- towards loss of income. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier method. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the injured as Rs. 250/- and determined the annual income at Rs. 3,000/-. After taking into consideration the age of the injured, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs. 54,000/- towards loss of income. After awarding Rs. 54,000/- towards loss of income, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards loss due to 38% disability. Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that, the Tribunal, after awarding a sum of Rs. 54,000/- towards loss of income, it ought not to have awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards loss due to 38% disability and he relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ahmed Thambi and Others, wherein it was held that once the Tribunal awarded a compensation towards loss of earning the Tribunal ought not to have awarded towards loss due to disability. Therefore, in the present case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 40,000/- towards loss due to 38% disability is unwarranted and accordingly it is deleted. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering and another Rs. 5,000/- towards Medical expenses, extra nourishment and transport. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries and also the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the amounts awarded towards these heads are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition. Taking into consideration the date of accident, date of award and also the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at 12% p.a. is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed.
The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees Loss of income 54,000/- Pain and suffering 5,000/- Medical expenses, extra nourishment and transport 5,000/- --------------- 64,000/- ===============
Under the circumstances, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs. 64,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition. Therefore, the Appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 16,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition, as against a sum of Rs. 24,000/- determined by the Tribunal.
With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. Consequently, CMP No. 8208 of 2005 is closed. No costs.