V.P. Thangavel and Another vs Manimegalai

S. Palanivelu, J.—This appeal is filed by the insurance company against award dated 26.2.2001 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 459 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Chidambaram, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,27,000, for the injuries sustained by the respondent.

On 9.8.1999 at about 2 p.m., while the respondent-claimant was returning back after selling vegetables in Siluvaipuram Bus Stand by a bus, the two-wheeler belonging to the appellant No. 1 dashed against her causing serious injuries. With regard to the manner of accident and the fixing of liability upon the respondent No. 1 and the insurance company, there is no debate. There is no infirmity with regard to the findings of the Tribunal and the factors regarding the accident.

The learned Counsel for the appellants very much assails the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal by vehemently arguing that it is excessive and it does not conform to the settled legal principles. Exh. P3 is the wound certificate issued to respondent which shows that she was inpatient from 9.8.1999 to 23.2.2000 in the Government Hospital. The observations contained in the above said certificate and the injuries reads as follows:

(1) Tenderness in dorsal spine-Burst D11 with palparms. X-ray dorsal spine AP Lat.

(2) Tender pelure superior and inferior and left side.

(3) Contusion left eye.

(4) Cervical spine tenderness-Loss of cervical AP Lat. X-ray cervical.

Exh. P5 is the sonogram report. Before the Tribunal, the respondent has deposed that she sustained fractures in her pelvis, spinal cord, injuries on her head and bleeding occurred in her ear, nose and she felt impairment in vision in her right eye and numbness in both the legs, afterwards, without control she had to pass urine and motion. She was admitted to Annamalai University Medical College & Hospital.

The doctor, PW 2, examined the respondent and issued the disability certificate stating that she is suffering from permanent disability to the tune of 90 per cent and further adding that she could not move her both legs; that she is unable to sit, walk or stand on her own accord; that she is passing urine without any control; that on a perusal of X-ray, she was able to find mal-union in cervical bone No. 11, which is found with pus. The doctor further opined that due to the injuries she could not walk in future since her entire nervous system has been affected, for such reason, passing of urine is uncontrollable, which will lead to contamination and that she has to undergo proper treatment and to take proper nourishment.

Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal has fixed the permanent disability at 70 per cent even though Exh. P12 disability certificate goes to the effect that it is 90 per cent. Claimant was a vegetable vendor and was earning about Rs. 4,000 per month. For loss of income, the Tribunal has fixed Rs. 2,00,000 and considering the medical expenses, she is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000 even though no medical bills have been produced, considering the long treatment, she has taken. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 50,000 on the strength of Exh. P11; for transport expenses Rs. 2,000 has been awarded; for extra nourishment, the Tribunal has allowed Rs. 5,000. Since she had been under medical treatment for a long time on account of personal assistance, a sum of Rs. 50,000 has been awarded and towards future personal assistance, Rs. 30,000 has been allowed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,000 towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000 for permanent disability. However, permanent disability and future loss of income should have been calculated under one head. Any way for both aspects, Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 have been awarded and in total, it may be taken as Rs. 3,50,000 to be awarded under the said head. Considering the manner of accident, for pain and suffering, medical treatment, which the claimant has undergone as well as her future suffering and difficulties in her life, this Court finds no infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal. It is seen that the claimant could not walk in future and she has to be sedentary and she could not maintain herself and her family.

In these circumstances, I do not find any necessity to interfere with the observations and findings of the Tribunal and the award deserves confirmation by this Court.

In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.