P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.@mdashThe appeal is preferred by the transport corporation against the award dated 30.07.2004 made in M.C.O.P No. 179 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court), Perambalur.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
One injured Pitchaipillai met with motor traffic accident on 06.11.2002 at about 05.00 hrs. The injured was riding his TVS 50 bearing registration No. TN 45 / K 6986 on Trichy to Chennai main road. While he was riding near MAM College at Konalai, a bus bearing registration No. TN 07 N 9280 belonging to the appellant transport corporation came from north to south direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the TVS 50. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained fracture, head injury and multiple injuries all over the body. He claimed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant transport corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus or not?
2. 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 bus and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,29,200/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim and the details of the same are as under:
________________________________________________________________________________ Loss due to 70% disability =Rs. 2,14,200/- Medical expenses =Rs. 10,000/- Pain and suffering =Rs. 5,000/- ________________________________________________________________________________ Total =Rs. 2,29,200/- ________________________________________________________________________________
Aggrieved by that award, the appellant transport corporation has filed the present appeal.
3. 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, the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method in injury case. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside.
4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation is based on valid materials and evidence. It is a question of fact and it is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed.
5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the appellant insurance company R.W.1 one Veeraiyasamy, who is the driver of the transport corporation bus was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr. Saravanan. Ex.P1 dated 06.11.2002 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 dated 09.07.2004 wound certificate, Ex.P3 conductor certificate copy, Ex.P4 is the copy of medical treatment, Ex.P5 dated 23.07.2004 is the disability certificate. 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 driver of the bus and awarded compensation. It is a question of fact. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence and therefore, the same is confirmed.
6. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 33 years. He is working as a Conductor in Private Bus Company. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that he was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month and further stated that it is only the driver of the bus caused the accident and the driver was also charge sheeted in Cr. No. 548/2002 on the file of Siruganur Police Station under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. Due to the accident, he sustained multiple and grievous injuries all over the body and left hand, left head brain affected and right hand and right leg was also affected. After the accident, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Trichy, as inpatient for a period of one month and a surgery was made on 12.11.2002 and he was taken treatment till 18.11.2002. Due to the injury, he is unable to do work as before. P.W.2 is Dr. Saravanan, who examined the claimant. In his evidence, it is stated that due to accident, the claimant sustained following injuries:
1. A laceration over left parietal scalp 5 x 3 x 1 cm;
2. Head injury
He examined the claimant and determined the disability at 70%. Ex.P5 is the disability certificate. After taking into consideration of the above, the Tribunal adopted multiplier method. There is no documentary evidence available on record to show that the injured was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs. 1,050/- and determined the annual income at Rs. 12,600/-. After taking into consideration of the age of the injured, the Tribunal adopted multiplier ''17'' and determined the loss of income at Rs. 2,14,200/- (Rs. 12,600x16). The Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method in injury case. In the present case, there is no concrete evidence available on record to show that 70% disability affects the earning capacity of the injured. Therefore, the correct method to be adopted in the present case is only percentage method. Normally Courts award Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per percentage of disability. In this case, after taking into consideration of the nature of injuries and the evidence of P.W.2 doctor, it is reasonable to award Rs. 1,750/- per percentage of disability and the loss due to 70% disability is works out to Rs. 1,22,500/- (Rs. 1,750/x70). Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,22,500/- towards loss due to 70% disability as against Rs. 2,14,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses. There is no documentary evidence filed by the injured to substantiate his claim. There is no dispute that he was taking treatment in the hospital as inpatient for one month and after discharge also, he was taking treatment as outpatient. After taking into consideration of the same, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering which is very low and meagre. After taking into consideration of the nature of injuries and Ex.P2 wound certificate, Ex.P6 disability certificate, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under that head as against Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards transportation and nourishment. The injured sustained grievous injuries all over the body and he was taking treatment in the hospital for one month as inpatient and after discharge also, he was taking treatment as outpatient. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each, for transportation as well as nourishment. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of amenities and loss of income during treatment period. There is no dispute that the injured was admitted in the hospital. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of amenities. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate and Ex.P5 is the disability certificate. Considering the above, and the fact that the claimant would have certainly not attended the work during treatment period, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of income during treatment period. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal is 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 rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The modified amount of the compensation are as under:
________________________________________________________________________________ Loss due to 70% disability = Rs. 1,22,500/- Medical expenses = Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering = Rs. 10,000/- Transport charges = Rs. 5,000/- Nourishment = Rs. 5,000/- Loss of amenities = Rs. 5,000/- Loss of income during treatment period = Rs. 10,000/- ________________________________________________________________________________ Total = Rs. 1,62,500/- ________________________________________________________________________________
7. In the result, the claimant is entitled to modified compensation of Rs. 1,62,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim as against Rs. 2,29,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is stated by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that they have deposited only 50% of the award amount by the Court order dated 29.08.2005 and the claimant also permitted to withdraw the same. Under these circumstances, the appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs. 1,62,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same, less the amount already withdrawn, on making proper application.
8. With the above modification, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.
