AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
When the first respondent herein/claimant was riding on his motorcycle on 29.05.2004, at about 5 p.m. on the Jedarpalayam Main Road, the first
respondent''s lorry bearing registration No. TN-27-A-7953, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As
a result, he had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries. Hence, the claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 611 of 2005 has been filed by the claimant
against the insurer of the owner of the lorry and compensation of a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was claimed.
The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and refuted the averments in the claim. The averments in the claim that the accident had
been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. It was submitted that the claimant had ridden his motorcycle in a reckless
manner and dashed it against the lorry and as such, the claimant had invited the accident. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and
occupation of the claimant, nature of injuries, mode of treatment and medical expenses were also not admitted.
On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal, had framed two issues, viz.,
(i) Whether the driver of the first respondent had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the said accident?
(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and ten documents were marked, viz., F.I.R., wound certificate, motor vehicle
inspector''s report, charge sheet, judgment copy, rough sketch, driving licence, medical bills, X-ray and disability certificate. On the side of the
respondent, no one was examined and no document was marked.
P.W. 1 had adduced evidence that on 29.05.2004, at about 5 p.m., when he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-
34-A-5427, on the Jedarpalayam Road, the first respondent''s lorry bearing registration No. TN-27-A-7953, had been driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner and it had dashed against him. The criminal case has been registered against the driver of the offending lorry. P.W. 1
further stated that he has been hospitalized at Maruthi Hospital, Erode, for a period of one month and that prior to the accident, he was doing
business and was also involved in the agricultural operations. After the accident, he is not able to do cultivation on his land. P.W. 1 further stated
that he had spent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses. After the accident, he is not able to walk, or stand for long periods of time. He
further adduced evidence that his left collar bone had been fractured and two of his bones in his left hand had been fractured and that the fractured
collar bone had not united and that the fractured bone had been dislocated. He further adduced evidence that the fractured bone on his left hand
was also mal-united.
P.W. 2, doctor had assessed the disability at 50% since the movements of the claimant''s left shoulder joint had been restricted from 170o to
140o. He deposed that the movements of the left hand had also been restricted from 80o to 40o.
On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the documents
marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,88,793/- as compensation to the claimant with interest at the rate of 75.% per
annum.
Against the said award and decree, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal.
The highly competent counsel vehemently argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,59,000/- under the head of ''loss of earning;
after adopting multiplier method, which is not pertinent in the instant case, as the claimant had sustained simple injuries. Further, the claimant had
ridden his motorcycle in a reckless manner and dashed against the lorry and therefore, contributory negligence has to be attributed to the claimant
as well in the instant case. The doctor had assessed the disability at 50% which is on the higher side. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court
to set-aside the award.
The very competent counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant''s left collar bone had been fractured and dislocated and his left shoulder
movements had been restricted from 170o to 140o and his left hand inner movements had been restricted from 90o to 75o and outer movements
on his left hand had been restricted from 90o to 60o. The left hand movements had been restricted from 80o to 40o and his left hand had also lost
its grasping ability by 60%. The same has been affirmed by the doctor in his evidence, after conducting physical test. Therefore, the doctor had
certified that the claimant had sustained 50% disability. After the accident, the claimant is not able to involve himself in agricultural operations and
unable to move from one place to another place and therefore, the multiplier method had been adopted. The learned counsel for the claimant
further submits that the claimant would incur future medical expenses for future treatment in order to conduct an operation on his left hand, for
which, he would require a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for treatment. The Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the heads of pain and
suffering, transport, nutrition, medical expenses, loss of earning during medical treatment period.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the
impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum
of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the driver of the lorry had admitted his guilt and paid the fine before the criminal Court and
the same has been proved through Ex. P5, judgment copy of criminal Court. It is also seen that the vehicle has been insured with the Insurance
Company. Therefore, negligence and liability had been decided by the Tribunal in an appropriate manner. The quantum of compensation is also
reasonable, but the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and granted compensation under the head of ''loss of earning'' which is not proper in
the instant case. Therefore, this Court restructures the compensation as follows:-
Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards disability; Rs. 9,793/- towards medical expenses; Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 10,000/-
towards transport; Rs. 10,000/- is awarded for nutrition; Rs. 15,000/- towards attender charges; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of earning during
medical treatment period; Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of future medical expenses for surgical operation on the left hand of the claimant since the
fractured bone has been mal-united as per the evidence of the doctor; Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded under the heads of ''loss of amenities and loss of
comfort since the shoulder bone had been displaced vertically as per doctor''s evidence. Therefore, this Court grants a sum of Rs. 4,84,793/- and
as such, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. Further, in this case, it is seen that the claimant has been involved in agricultural operations. After
the accident, the claimant is not able to do cultivation on his land. Therefore, it is evident that the claimant, who is middle aged has lost his strength
permanently and this has incapacitated him from doing his avocation as an agricultural worker.
This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire
compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 611 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Namakkal, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, the order passed in M.C.O.P. No. 611 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Namakkal,
dated 30.12.2008 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.