AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—The appeal is preferred by the appellant insurance company against the award dated 23.06.2005 made in
M.C.O.P No. 549 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Prl Subordinate Court, Salem.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: One injured Shanmugam met with motor traffic accident on 19.8.2001 at about 09.00 P.M. The
said injured was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. TNS 7709 along with his friend Nadeesha as a pillion rider from Steel Plant
Quarters to Namakkal for the purpose of visiting his relatives. While they were nearing Mallur Erikkarai, a State Transport Corporation bus
bearing registration No. TSTC TN 55 N 172 came from Salem to Trichy and had overtaken the motor cycle, at that time, a Tempo Van bearing
registration No. TN 37 1844 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus and went out of the control and also
hit the motor cycle. Due to the impact, both the rider as well as pillion rider were thrown out and sustained greivous injuries all over the body.
Immediately, the claimant was admitted in Salem Government Hospital. He claimed a sum of Rs. 22,93,000/- as compensation. The said Tempo
Van was insured with the appellant insurance company who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo Van or not?
What is the compensation, the claimant is entitled to?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the Tempo Van and awarded compensation of Rs. 9,85,120/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim and the details of
the same are as under:
Loss of income = Rs. 9,75,120/-
Pain and suffering = Rs. 5,000/-
Nourishment = Rs. 4,000/-
Transport charges = Rs. 750/-
Damage to cloth = Rs. 250/-
-------------------
Total = Rs. 9,85,120/-
-------------------
Aggrieved by that award, the appellant insurance company has filed the present appeal.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company questioned only the quantum of the award and vehemently contented that
the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and also without any basis and justification. Further, it was contended that the Tribunal is
wrong in adopting multiplier method in injury case and vehemently contended that the injured is continued to be in the employment. Therefore, the
multiplier method should not be adopted. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set
aside.
Inspite of notice served on the respondents and their names are also appeared in the cause-list, there is no representation on their behalf either in
person or through pleader.
Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. On the side of the
appellant insurance company, R.W.1 one Natesan, who is the Senior Manager in Salem Steel Corporation was examined and no document was
marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant, P.W.2 is one Nadeesha, who is the pillion rider of the motor cycle, P.W.3 is Dr. T.N.
Muralidharan, who is the Neurologist, P.W.4 is Dr. T.S. Vasu, who is the Ophthalmologist, P.W.5 Dr. Sundararajan were examined. Ex.P1 is the
First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate, Ex.P3 is the charge-sheet, Ex.P4 is the report of the motor vehicle''s inspector, Ex.P5 is
the judgment copy, Ex.P6 is the accident register, Ex.P7 is the claimant''s treatment records, Ex.P8 is the disability certificate, Ex.P9 is the salary
certificate, Ex.P10 is the PAN card, Ex.P11 is the Income Tax form, Ex.P12 is the salary certificate of P.W.2, Ex.P13 is the PAN card of P.W.2,
Ex.P14 is the Income Tax form, Ex.P15 is the disability certificate, Ex.P16 is the Scan, Ex.P17 is X-ray were marked. After considering the above
oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Tempo Van. It is a question of fact. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence and therefore, the same is confirmed.
At the time of the accident, the injured was aged about 32 years. P.W.1 is the claimant. In his evidence, it is stated that he is working as a
Senior Operator in Salem Steel Plant, Salem, and he claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs. 10,500/- per month. In his evidence, it is further
stated that only the driver of the Tempo Van caused the accident and the driver was also charge sheeted by Mallur Police Station, in Cr. No.
630/2001. Due to the accident, he sustained head injury resulting in Opticatrophy of right eye and consequent vision in the right eye is NIL. After
the accident, immediately he was admitted in Government Hospital, Salem, and later, he was referred to A.G. Neuro Hospital, Salem for further
treatment. At the time of accident, he was aged about 32 years. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the age of the injured at 32 years. The claimant
claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs. 10,500/- per month. Ex.P9 is the salary certificate, in which, it is stated the monthly salary of the injured
is at Rs. 16,423/- and the evidence of R.W.1 is also corroborate the same. Ex.P10 is the PAN card and Ex.P11 is the Income Tax form. Ex.P9 is
the salary certificate, in which, it is stated that the net salary of the injured is fixed at Rs. 9,560/-, after deducing Income Tax and other deductions.
Therefore, the Tribunal relied on Ex.P9 and fixed the monthly salary of the injured at Rs. 9,560 per month. In the evidence of P.W.1, it is further
stated that he was in unconscious condition for a period of three months and also lost the vision in his right eye and the evidence of P.W.3
Dr.Muralidharan, who is the Neurologist, is also corroborate the same. P.W.4 is Dr.Vasu, who is the Ophthalmologist also examined the claimant.
In his evidence, it is stated that the eye nerves were very much affected and due to the same, he lost the vision in his right eye. He determined the
disability at 30%. Ex.P8 is the disability certificate. P.W.1 in his evidence, has stated that after the accident, he is continued to be in the
employment. After taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 20% as against 30% fixed by
P.W.4 doctor. P.W.5 is Dr.Sundararajan who also examined the claimant. In his evidence, it is stated that the claimant''s right hand and leg were
very much affected and due to the same, he is unable to do work as before. He determined the disability at 60%. Ex.P15 is the disability
certificate. R.W.1 in his evidence has stated that after the accident, the injured is continued to be in the employment and because of these injuries
he may not get increment of Rs. 200/- per year. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 30% as against 60% fixed by P.W.5 doctor and the
total disability was fixed at 50%. After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, the Tribunal adopted multiplier ''17'' and arrived at the
loss of income due to 50% disability at Rs. 9,75,120/- (Rs. 9560 x 12 x 17 x 50/100). Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended
that it is not the fit case for adopting multiplier. Further, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the monthly income at Rs. 9,560/-. In the present case,
the injured is continued to be in the employment and he was not de-promoted and also drawing same salary but in the evidence of R.W.1, it is
stated that due to the disability, the injured may not get increment every year. After considering the above evidence of R.W.1, the Tribunal ought
not to have fixed the salary of the injured at Rs. 9,560/- per month. The only loss to the injured is that he may not get increment due to the above
injury and also he lost the vision in his right eye. Therefore, it is reasonable to estimate the notional loss at Rs. 4,000/- per month and the annual
loss is works out to Rs. 48,000/-. After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, it is reasonable to adopt multiplier ''17'' as per the
second schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If multiplier ''17'' applied, the loss due to 50% disability is works out to Rs.
4,08,000/-(Rs. 48,000 x 17 x 50/100). Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 4,08,000/- towards loss due to 50% disability as against Rs.
9,75,120/- awarded by the Tribunal. The present case satisfies all the conditions as enumerated in the case of United India Insurance Company
Ltd., Branch Officer Vs. Veluchamy and Another, . Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering which is very
low and meagre. He lost the vision in his right eye and grievous injuries all over the body. Taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to
award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as against Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards extra
nourishment which is very low and meagre. He was taking treatment in various hospitals. After taking into consideration of the same, it is
reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards extra nourishment as against Rs. 4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs. 750/- towards transport charges which is very low and meagre. He was taken treatment in Bangalore as well as Chennai. Therefore,
it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards transport charges as against Rs. 750/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also
awarded a sum of Rs. 250/- towards damage to cloth which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded
any sum towards loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, it is reasonable to award
a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of amenities and the 50% disability would certainly affect the injured. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a
sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of expectation of life. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards attendant charges. After taking
into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards attendant charges. The
Tribunal awarded interest of 9% per annum. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and the prevailing rate of interest
during that period, the interest of 9% awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The modified amount of the compensation
are as under:
Loss due to 50% disability = Rs. 4,08,000/-
Pain and suffering = Rs. 20,000/-
Extra nourishment = Rs. 15,000/-
Transport charges = Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of amenities = Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of expectation of life = Rs. 20,000/-
Attendant charges = Rs. 7,000/-
------------------
Total = Rs. 5,15,000/-
------------------
In the result, the claimant is entitled to modified compensation of Rs. 5,15,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition.
It is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company that they have deposited the entire award amount with interest by the Court
order dated 30.11.2005 and the claimant was also permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount. Under these circumstances, the claimant is
permitted to withdraw the modified compensation of Rs. 5,15,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, less the amount already withdrawn, on making
proper application. The appellant insurance company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount on making proper application.
With the above modifications, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.