P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.@mdashThis appeal is preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2007 made in M.C.O.P. No. 359 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Fast Track Court No. II, Additional District Judge, Pattukottai.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The injured-claimant Chinnappan met with motor traffic accident on 17.04.2006 at about 12.45p.m. The said injured was proceeding along with his family members in an Ambassador Car belonging to the second Respondent bearing Registration No. TN-49-M-2538, near Karambayam Meenakshi Chandrasekaran Arts College. The car was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed, due to which it hit the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-46-C-1177. Due to the said impact, the claimant and others sustained injuries. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-as compensation before the Tribunal. The said Ambassador Car was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Who is responsible for the accident?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation?
If so how much and from whom?
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 Ambassador Car and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,96,837/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as follows:
For loss of income Rs. 1,80,000/-
For pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
For extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-
For damages to cloth Rs. 200/-
For transport charges Rs. 3,000/-
For medical expenses Rs. 837/-
For attendant''s charges Rs. 3,000/-
-------------------
Total.... Rs. 1,97,037/-
-------------------
The totalling of the amounts awarded under various heads comes to Rs. 1,97,037/-, but the Tribunal has made a totalling error and wrongly mentioned that the total compensation awarded is Rs. 1,96,837/-. Aggrieved by that award, the Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and also without any basis and justification. He further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-towards loss of income, which is very excessive. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent/claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. It is a question of fact and also it is based on valid materials and evidence. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.
5. Heard the counsel and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.3 were examined and documents Exs.A.1 to A.16 were marked. P.W.1 is the injured-claimant. P.W.3 is Dr. Chellappan. Ex.A.1 is the xerox copy of the First Information Report. Ex.A.2 is the xerox copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report pertaining to the vehicle belonging to the second Respondent. Ex.A.3 is the xerox copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report pertaining to the vehicle belonging to the third Respondent. Ex.A.4 is the xerox copy of Registration Certificate of the 2nd Respondent''s vehicle. Ex.A.5 is the xerox copy of the Registration Certificate of the 3rd Respondent''s vehicle. Ex.A.6 is the xerox copy of the driving license of the second Respondent. Ex.A.7 is the xerox copy of the driving license of the third Respondent. Ex.A.8 is the xerox copy of the Insurance-Policy of the second Respondent''s vehicle. Ex.A.9 is the xerox copy of the Insurance Policy of the third Respondent''s Vehicle. Ex.A.10 is the xerox copy of the Accident Register of Chinnappan. Ex.A.11 is the Discharge Summary of Chinnappan. Ex.A.12 are the medical bills amounting to Rs. 836.82. Ex.A13 are the medical prescription. On behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador car and awarded the compensation. It is a question of fact and therefore the same is confirmed.
6. It is stated in the claim petition that the injured-claimant was 42 years old at the time of accident. He is a community organiser. In the evidence of P.W.1, it is stated that he was earning a sum of Rs. 7,176/-per month. Further in the evidence of P.W.1, it is stated that the accident had occurred only due to the driver of the Ambassador Car and the driver was charge-sheeted by Pattukottai Police Station in Crime No. 237 of 2006 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Due to the accident, the injured-claimant sustained a deep cut in the eye-brow also a fracture in the right leg. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Pattukottai and later he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Tanjore and he was admitted in the hospital from 18.04.2006 to 29.05.2006 as in-patient. Due to the accident, he is unable to do his work as before. Ex.A.10 is the Accident Register and Ex.A.11 is the Discharge Slip of the claimant. P.W.3, is the Doctor who examined the claimant on 04.10.2007 and determined the disability at 30%. Further in the evidence of P.W.3, it is stated that due to the injuries, the claimant cannot do the work as before and the movement of his right leg has also been restricted. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 4,000/-and calculated the annual income at Rs. 48,000/-and after considering the age of the injured as 42 years, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs. 7,20,000/-. Even though, the doctor has assessed the disability at 30%, the Tribunal has reduced the disability to 25%. The learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company has vehemently contended that the Tribunal should not have adopted the multiplier method in the case of injury and the correct method that should be adopted in the present case is only percentage method. Normally the Courts awarded a sum of Rs. 1000/-to Rs. 2000/-for each percentage of disability. However, in this case, the Doctor assessed the disability at 30%. But, the Tribunal has reduced the disability from 30% to 25% without any basis. The disability assessed by the Doctor only has to be taken into consideration. Here, in this case it would be appropriate to award Rs. 2000/-per percentage of disability. Accordingly, the loss due to 30% disability works out Rs. 60,000/-(Rs. 2000 X 30). Therefore, the loss of income awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,80,000/-stands modified to Rs. 60,000/-under the head "loss due to 30% disability". The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards pain and suffering, which is very low. After taking into consideration of the fracture sustained by the injured-claimant, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/-towards pain and suffering as against the sum of Rs. 5,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 5,000/-towards extra nourishment. There is no dispute that the injured-claimant was admitted in the hospital and he would have taken healthy food for speedy recovery. Hence, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/-towards extra nourishment as against a sum of Rs. 5,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 200/-for damages to clothes which is very reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 3,000/-towards transport charges, which is very low. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards transport charges. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 837/-for medical bills. It is an actual expenditure. It is also very reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3000/-towards attendant charges which I feel is very low. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 4,000/-towards attendant charges. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards future medical expenses. Taking into consideration of the fact that a surgery was made in the right leg of the injured-claimant and the plates were also fixed definitely he will incur some expenses for removal of plates in future. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 15,000/-towards future medical expenses. Further, the Tribunal has also awarded 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of claim petition. After taking note of the date of accident, the date of award and also the prevailing interest during the relevant period, the interest rate at 7.5%p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed.
7. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:
For loss due to 30% disability Rs. 60,000/-
For pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
For extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
For transport charges Rs. 5,000/-
For attendant''s charges Rs. 4,000/-
For medical bills Rs. 837/-
For future medical expenses Rs. 15,000/-
For damages to cloth Rs. 200/-
-----------------
Total.... Rs.1,20,037/-
-----------------
Rounded off to Rs.1,20,000/-
Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition as against the sum of Rs. 1,97,037/-with 7.5% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal.
8. The Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-with interest at 7.5%p.a. from the date of petition, less the amount, if any, already deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same on making proper application. Under the circumstances, this is not a fit case for admission.
9. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
