AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants to set aside the award and decree dated
19.11.2001 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 40 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(I Additional Sub Judge) Tirunelveli.
The appellant is the Insurance Company. On 30.10.2000, the first respondent travelled in a van that was insured with the Insurance Company
and the van capsized and the first respondent got grievous injury and suffered 44% permanent partial disablement. The first respondent preferred
M.C.O.P. No. 40 of 2001, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli, claiming a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs as compensation.
The claim was resisted by the appellant before the Tribunal. The first respondent, the claimant examined herself as the first witness. She also
examined the Doctor who gave the disability certificate as second witness. The documents Ex.P.1 to P.10 were marked on the side of the first
respondent. Nobody was examined on the side of the appellant and no documents were marked.
The Tribunal passed an order dated 19.11.01 granting a sum of Rs. 92,415/- as compensation. The present appeal is against the said order.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed error in granting a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for pain and suffering, while
the first respondent took treatment as in patient for six days only. It is stated that when an award of Rs. 44,000/- was granted for permanent
disability, the Tribunal was not justified in granting another amount for pain and suffering.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that the Tribunal should have granted a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for each
percentage of disability and in that event the first respondent ought to have been granted a sum of Rs. 88,000/-. The learned Counsel for the first
respondent relies on the decision of this Court in S. Raja v. The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Division I, Chennai-2,
reported in 2009(2) TNMAC 690, in support of his submission. He submits that the award relating to the personal disability is one thing and the
award relating to pain and suffering is different. He points out that in all the cases of injury resulting in permanent disability while awarding
compensation for permanent disability, certain amount has also been awarded for pain and suffering, taking into account various circumstances.
The learned Counsel submits that even if the amount relating to pain and suffering is excessive, since the Tribunal awarded lesser amount in the
case of disability compensation, this Court need not interfere in the award.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides.
Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act envisages grant of just compensation to the victims of the accidents. In this case, as correctly contended by
the learned Counsel for the first respondent, though the first respondent is aged only about 42 years and she suffered 44% disability, the Tribunal
awarded only a sum of Rs. 44,000/-, when she is entitled to a sum of Rs. 88,000/- as per the decision of this Court in Raja''s case as referred to
above. The percentage of disability is not in dispute.
Hence the learned Counsel for the first respondent is fair in his submission that though there is some excess amount towards pain and suffering,
the award need not be interfered, since the Tribunal awarded lesser amount in the case of permanent disability. According to the learned Counsel
for the first respondent, the first respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs. 88,000/- towards permanent disability alone.
Under these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the award and the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.