Madras High Court
Parani Sathya Narayanan vs The Managing Director on 25 April, 2008
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25/04/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A(MD)No.102 of 2006 Parani Sathya Narayanan .. Appellant Vs The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Dindigul. .. Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 26.09.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.9 of 1998 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge, Palani. !For Appellant ... Mr.R.Subramanian ^For Respondent ... Mr.K.Gokul for Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated 26.09.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.9 of 1998 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge, Palani.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The Tribunal vide Judgement dated 26.09.2003, awarded compensation to a tune of Rs.42,250/-(Rupees forty two thousand two hundred and fifty Only) under the following sub heads:
For Permanent disability :Rs. 20,000/- For Medical Expenses :Rs. 18,250/-
For extra nourishment :Rs. 2,000/-
For Pain and Sufferings :Rs. 5,000/-
--------------
Rs. 45,250/-
--------------
4. Animadverting upon the lesser quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant filed this appeal on various grounds; the gist and kernel of them would run thus:
The Tribunal awarded a meagre compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) under the caption permanent disability/loss of earning capacity, even though the injured sustained 60% loss of hearing relating to his right ear and 10% relating to his left ear. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the sub heads, (i) loss of income during the treatment period and convalescent period, (ii) transportation charges and (iii) loss of amenities. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant prays for enhancement of the compensation.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded 'just compensation' if not, whether the compensation has to be enhanced?
The point:
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant by challenging the Judgment of the Tribunal would develop his arguments to the effect that the Tribunal arbitrarily assessed the permanent disability at 20%, even though the doctor opined higher percentage of permanent disability, in view of the serious injuries sustained by the claimant and that the Tribunal also did not award under various other sub heads as set out supra any compensation.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent/ Transport Corporation would submit that the very compensation awarded is on the higher side as the Tribunal under paragraph No.7 of its Judgment opined that the claimant in the witness box answered the question after hearing properly and that based on that alone, he reduced the percentage of disability to 20%.
8. The fact remains that P.W.3, the doctor, who issued the permanent disability certificate Ex.P7 would narrate that the claimant sustained 60% permanent disability relating to his right ear and 10% permanent disability relating to his left ear after conducting 'Pure Tone Audiometry' test. However, the Tribunal's assessment of permanent disability should be understood in the proper perspective. Simply because the doctor opined that altogether 70% permanent disability was sustained by the claimant, it cannot be taken as though to the extent of 70%, his earning capacity got dwindled or reduced. It should be understood that his hearing capacity alone got impaired to the extent of 70%. The Court has to see in an overall manner as to what extent his earning capacity got reduced. The Tribunal in its wisdom felt that because of the injured's hearing impairment, his earning capacity to an extent of 20% got reduced and I am having no reason to disagree with such a finding. However, the accident occurred in the year 1997. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1000/- for each percentage of permanent disability. No doubt, this is not a case relating to any injury to any limb, nonetheless the compensation could be Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) under the caption permanent disability/loss of earning capacity.
9. Under the caption pain and sufferings, a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) was awarded, which requires no interference, taking into account the nature of the injuries.
10. A sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) was awarded for taking nutritious food, which could be confirmed.
11. A sum of Rs.18,250/- (Rupees eighteen thousand two hundred and fifty only) was awarded towards medical expenses, based on medical bills and I am having no reason to doubt the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal as nothing has been highlighted that the medical bills were not genuine. Accordingly, under that sub head also the compensation awarded has to be upheld.
12. Relating to loss of amenities a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only), towards transport expenses a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and towards loss of income during the treatment period and convalescent period a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) could be awarded and that would meet the ends of justice as it also evident that from 29.07.2007 to 11.08.2007, the claimant was taking treatment and during that period and soon after that also he might not have been able to perform his work as a T.V. mechanic. Accordingly, the compensation is modified as under:
For Permanent disability :Rs. 30,000/- For Medical Expenses :Rs. 18,250/-
For extra nourishment :Rs. 2,000/-
For Pain and Sufferings :Rs. 5,000/- For loss of amenities :Rs. 3,000/-
For transport expenses :Rs. 1,000/- For loss of income during the treatment period and convalescent period :Rs. 2,000/-
--------------
Rs. 61,250/-
--------------
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.42,250/-(Rupees forty two thousand two hundred and fifty Only) to Rs.61,250/-(Rupees sixty one thousand two hundred and fifty Only), which shall carry interest at the rate of 9% as directed by the Tribunal. No costs.
14. The Registry is directed to send back the records immediately to the Tribunal.
smn To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge, Palani.