AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2005, passed in M.C.O.P. No. 419 of 2004, on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi.
Heard both sides.
The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated
22.12.2005, to a tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) on the following sub-heads:
(i) For Loss of Earning Capacity - Rs. 1,30,000.00
(ii) For Transport Expenses - Rs. 500.00
(iii) For Nutritious Food - Rs. 4,500.00
(iv) For Pain and Sufferings - Rs. 13,000.00
(v) For Permanent Disability - Rs. 12,000.00
(vi) For Permanent Disability - Rs. 40,000.00
---------------
Total - Rs. 2,00,000.00
---------------
The nitty gritty, the gist and kernel of the grievances of the appellant as found set out in the grounds of appeal could be portrayed thus:
The Tribunal without any rhyme or reason simply awarded compensation under the caption loss of earning capacity a huge sum of Rs. 1,30,000/-,
even though the claimants sustained only 20% permanent disability. The compensation amounts awarded under other sub-heads are also not
tenable.
During trial, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 9 were marked and there was no oral or
documentary evidence adduced on the side of the respondents.
Point for consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded is just and proper?
Point: The learned Counsel for the appellant would draw the attention of this Court to the fact that the Tribunal awarded a huge sum of Rs.
1,30,000/- under the caption loss of earning capacity, in addition to the compensation awarded under the caption, permanent disability. At this
juncture I would like to recollect the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ahmed Thambi and
Others, . An excerpt from it would run thus:
In order to avoid any future confusion and to bring more clarity and transparency in the award of damages, it is necessary that the Tribunal,
while awarding damages, should itemise the award under each of the head namely, pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses. In the non-
pecuniary losses the Tribunal shall consider: (a) pain and suffering, (b) loss of amenity, (c) loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress, etc.
(d) loss of prospect of marriage and under the head pecuniary losses, the Tribunal shall consider loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings
as one component apart from medical and other expenses and loss of earning, if any from the date of accident till the date of trial. When loss of
earning capacity is compensated as also the non-pecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be separately itemised.
In a case of injury, towards future loss of income separately no amount need be awarded. However, loss of income during the treatment period
and convalescent period could be awarded. Further more the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,000/- and another sum of Rs. 40,000/-
for the one and the same sub-head permanent disability, which in my opinion are not tenable. As such it requires interference. The Tribunal, it is
emphasised should not have resorted to awarding a sum of Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 1,30,000/- relating to the one and the same
grounds i.e., permanent disability. However, taking into consideration the fact that the deceased sustained injury at the age of 33, awarding at the
rate of Rs. 2,000/- for each percent of permanent disability would meet the ends of justice. If accordingly worked out for 20% permanent
disability the compensation comes to Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only).
Towards pain and sufferings the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 13,000/-, which according to the learned Counsel for the claimant could be
enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). Considering the nature of the disability the prayer could be accepted. Towards
nutritious food the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,500/- which could be confirmed. Towards Transport expenses a sum of Rs. 500/- was
awarded by the Tribunal which could be enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). For three months the injured might have been
able to perform his work as fruit vendor. Hence, considering his nature of the job a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) could
rightly be awarded towards loss of income during the treatment period and convalescent period. As such the compensation awarded is modified as
under:
(i) For Permanent Disability - Rs. 40,000.00
(ii) For Transport Expenses - Rs. 1,000.00
(iii) For Nutritious Food - Rs. 4,500.00
(iv) For Pain and Sufferings - Rs. 20,000.00
(v) For loss of income during
the treatment period and
Convalescent period - Rs. 15,000.00
-------------
Total - Rs. 80,500.00
-------------
The learned Counsel for the appellants would convincingly argue that the interest awarded was 9%, but it should only be 7.5% in
commensurate with the decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. reported in
2005 (2) TAC 297 SC and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and Anr. reported in 2006 (1) TAC 1 (SC). No contrary argument is
forthcoming from the side of the claimant so as to disagree with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Hence, the interest
awarded is reduced to 7.5% p.a. instead of 9% p.a.
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs
only) to Rs. 80,500/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand and five Hundred only). The rate of the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is reduced to
7.5% p.a. In other aspects the award shall hold good. No costs.