A.Arokiyam v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd

J U D G M E N T This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 11.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.5085 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Special Sub Judge, Small Causes Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Chennai.

¶2The appellant filed M.C.O.P.No.5085 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Special Sub Judge, Small Causes Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Chennai claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 02.03.2010.

¶3The appellant filed a claim petition stating that on 02.03.2010, at about 07.00 p.m., while he was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN–69–C-9293 from East to West direction in Vilathikulam to Vembur road, a bus bearing Registration No.TN - 57 - N –1173, driven by its driver belonging to the respondent herein in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcyle and caused the accident. In the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Thus, the appellant filed claim petition claiming compensation against the respondent.

¶4The respondent/Transport Corporation filed a counter statement denying all the averments made by the appellant in the claim petition and stated that the driver of the bus drove the same with due care and caution observing traffic rules; that the rider of the two wheeler drove the same in an inebriated condition; that the accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the rider of the two wheeler and stated that in any event, the total compensation claimed by the appellant is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶5Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked six documents as Exs.P.1 to Exs.P.6. The respondent neither examined any witness nor marked any document on their side.

¶6The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent/Transport Corporation and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- as compensation to the appellant.

7.Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶8Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the appellant had examined Doctor/P.W.2 to prove the disability suffered by him and marked Ex.P.6/disability certificate issued by P.W.2 stating that the Tribunal had erroneously reduced the same to 10% and awarded compensation by percentage method without any basis. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.2 was a Government Doctor and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence; that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for 30% disability at the rate of Rs.3000/- per percentage of disability and hence prayed for enhancement of compensation.

¶9Learned counsel for the respondent/Transport Corporation, per contra, submitted that the appellant was not examined by the Medical Board; that P.W.2/Government Doctor had admitted in his cross examination that he had not followed the guidelines prescribed for assessing disability; that in the light of the said evidence, the Tribunal was right in reducing the disability to 10% and awarding compensation by percentage method and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶10Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶11The only question before this Court, in the instant appeal is whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation?

¶12The appellant had examined P.W.2/Government Doctor who had stated as follows: C.M.A.No.90ooofo2022 ... "ehd; nkwf; zl; tHff; pd; kDjhuh; A.Mnuhf;fpak; bfhzL; tej; tpgj;Jf;Fz;lhd rpfpr;ir Mtz';fs;. fjphpaf;fg;gl';fs; Mfpatw;iw Muha;e;Jk;. jw;bghGJ css; epiyia mwpa vf!; ;nu vLjJ; k;. fle;j 22/05/2018 njjpadW; neh;Kf kw;Wk; Mat; f[ ;Tl ghpnrhjid bra;Jk; Cdrr; hd;wpjH; tH';fpndd;/ mtUf;F fle;j 02/03/2010y; Vwg; ll; rhiy tpgj;jpy; mtuJ tyJ Kd;if vYk;g[ KwpeJ; k;. jiyapy; gyjj; btlL; fhak; Vwg; lL; ,ujj; k; ciwe;Jk; JhjJ; fF; o muR kUjJ; tkidapy; cs;nehahspahf rpfpr;ir bgw;Wss; hh;/ nkwg; o fhajj; pd; fhuzkhf mtuJ tyJif mira[k; jd;ik ghjpjj; ikahy; Vw;gl;l cghijfisa[k; jiyf;fhaj;jpdhy; Vw;gl;l cghijfisa[k; fzf;fpy; vLjJ; f;bfhzL; . MtuJ Cdj;ij gFjp epue;jubkd 30%o vd fzpj;J ehd; tH';fpa Cdrr; hdw; pjH; jhd; ix.P6." TheoP.W.2/Doctorohadoissuedoaodisabilityocertificateowhichoisomarkedoaso Ex.P.6,obeforeotheoTribunal.o

¶13Considering the nature of injuries, P.W.2/Government Doctor had assessed locomotive disability at 30%. There is no contra evidence let in by the respondent to disprove the evidence of P.W.2/Doctor and Ex.P.6/Disability Certificate. There is no basis also for the Tribunal to reduce the percentage of disability from 30% to 10%. The Tribunal in the facts ought to have accepted the disability certificate issued by P.W.2/Doctor, considering the injuries suffered by the appellant. As per the disability certificate, the appellant suffered 30% partial permanent disability. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability for 30% disability. Thus, the compensation awarded under the head Disability is enhanced to Rs.90,000/- (Rs.3,000/- X 30%). The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable and hence, the same are confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.65,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- break-up follows:- Sl. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal

(Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted

¶1Disability 30,000/- 90,000/- Enhanced

¶2Pain and Suffering 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed

¶3Transportation Expenses 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed

¶4Additional Nourishment 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed

¶5Loss of Income 5,000/-5,000/-Confirmed Total 65,000/-1,25,000/-Enhanced by Rs.60,000/-

¶14With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.65,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period if any) from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The appellant is directed to pay the necessary Court Fee, if any, on the enhanced award amount. No Costs.

08.08.2023 dk Index: Yes/No Copy to:-

1.The II Special Sub Judge, Small Causes Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

¶2The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk C.M.A. No. 90 of 2022

08.08.2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.08.2023 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN C.M.A.No.90 of 2022 A.Arokiyam ...Appellant/Petitioner Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Thirunelveli. ...Respondent/Respondent Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree in M.C.O.P.No.5085 of 2015, dated 11.02.2020, on the file of II Special Sub Judge, Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chennai. For Appellant : Mrs.A.Subadra for Mr.A.Shanmugaraj For Respondent : Mr.C.Gowthamaraj