Madras High Court
Madhavan vs Managing Director, Marudhu Pandiyar ... on 8 June, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2001ACJ873, (2000)1MLJ95
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam
JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. Madhavan is the claimant-appellant herein. For the injuries sustained by him due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent Corporation, the petitioner filed a claim petition seeking for the compensation of Rs. 75,000.
2. The Tribunal, though found that the claimant sustained serious injuries due to the negligent driving, concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation, as he had already received Rs. 2,300 from the respondent Corporation towards medical expenses and he had given the receipt for the same by giving undertaking that he would not go to any forum for claiming compensation. This impugned order is challenged by claimant/appellant herein.
3. When the matter came up before this court for final disposal yesterday (i.e., 7.6.1999), the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Samuel Rajapandian, was absent. Mr. G. Munirathinam, the counsel for the respondent, was present. The counsel for the respondent contended that the award of the Tribunal is correct and unassailable. Since the counsel for the petitioner was absent, in order to give an opportunity to him, the case was posted today.
4. Even today, the counsel for the appellant is absent. Therefore, this court is constrained to look into the records and pass the following judgment.
5. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence let in by the parties, found that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent Corporation, the claimant who was riding on a bicycle on 15.1.1988 at about 1.00 p.m. sustained injuries on the left hand and that he had a fracture on his left hand and he was hospitalised for several days. It is also observed in the award passed by the Tribunal that there is material available in the form of evidence of PW 2 doctor to show that the claimant sustained grievous injuries, as he had a fracture on the bone of his left elbow and an operation was conducted on him and there is a permanent disability of 25 per cent.
6. Though the claimant had claimed Rs. 25,000 for loss of earning capacity and Rs. 25,000 towards medical expenses, the Tribunal rejected the claim mainly on the basis of the evidence let in by RW 1, who was working as Legal Assistant in the respondent Corporation that there was a compromise between the claimant and the Corporation and consequently, the matter was settled by which the claimant received Rs. 2,300 by way of cheque from the respondent Corporation towards the medical expenses and gave an undertaking that he would not pursue the matter by approaching any forum.
7. Exhs. P-l to P-6 and Exhs. P-9 and P-10 would clearly reveal that the claimant was hospitalised for a number of days and an operation was conducted on him by PW 2 and due to the fracture sustained on his left hand, the claimant sustained permanent disability to an extent of 25 per cent. It is also seen from the evidence of PW 2 that he would not be able to do his job as a result of fracture sustained on his left hand.
8. In the light of the said materials, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the Corporation and assessed the quantum of the award, having held that the driver of the bus was negligent.
9. On the other hand, the Tribunal, on the basis of Exhs. R-l to R-7 marked through RW 1, which would show that the matter was compromised prior to the filing of the claim petition and as a result of the said compromise, the claimant received Rs. 2,300 giving an undertaking that he would not pursue the matter before any forum, held that the claimant is not entitled to any amount of compensation. This, in my view, is not a legal approach.
10. It is rather humane and just that the Corporation had compassionately settled the claim through compromise talk with the claimant, instead of allowing the claimant to indulge in unnecessary litigation, so that goodwill and public credibility could be improved.
11. After all, the Corporation has a paramount duty, apart from the liability for tort, to make effective steps for providing amount towards expenses incurred for medical treatment by the claimant. But, at the same time, the Corporation ought to have properly decided the matter on the basis of the entire materials by giving suitable amount of compensation to the claimant. If the claimant is satisfied with the said amount of compensation and if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the said amount handed over by the Corporation to the claimant is quite sufficient, then there is no difficulty in holding that the appellant/claimant need not approach the forum concerned.
12. But, in the instant case, the Tribunal, merely on the basis of Exh. R-l dated 27.6.88, which would show that the claimant received Rs. 2,300 towards medical expenses by giving an undertaking that he would not pursue the matter, concluded that he is not entitled to any compensation. This finding is totally erroneous.
13. Admittedly, the permanent disability as per the evidence of PW 2 is to the extent of 25 per cent. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 would clearly show that the victim cannot go back to his job. In the light of the said evidence, the Tribunal ought to have analysed the question as to whether a sum of Rs. 2,300 which was given by the Corporation to the claimant prior to the filing of the claim petition is sufficient or not.
14. In the light of the materials referred to earlier, I am of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs. 2,300 is definitely on the lower side.
15. Furthermore, it cannot be held merely on the basis of Exh. R-l that the appellant/claimant is not entitled to any compensation. Once there is a finding by the Tribunal that the claimant sustained grievous injuries resulting in loss of earning capacity, then the Tribunal certainly has to decide about the quantum, which has not been done by the Tribunal in the instant case.
16. Moreover, it shall be noticed that the claimant as PW 1, even in the chief-examination, had stated that he received Rs. 2,300 from the Corporation towards medical expenses only. Further, he stated that he had signed in blank papers as requested by the Corporation. Therefore, it cannot be stated that he willingly accepted the said amount on the assurance that he would not go to any forum for pursuing further.
17. Even assuming that the said undertaking had been given, as pleaded by RW 1, in my view, it cannot be said that the claimant is not entitled to approach the forum to seek for sufficient amount as compensation.
18. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that for the three heads, namely, pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity and towards medical expenses, the claimant is entitled to a consolidated amount of Rs. 25,000 as compensation. Since admittedly, the claimant/appellant had received Rs. 2,300 from the Corporation, even before filing of the claim petition, the Corporation is directed to pay the balance amount to the appellant/claimant with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No costs.
20. Since the counsel for the petitioner is absent, the Tribunal is directed to intimate the result of this appeal to the appellant after due notice.