Madras High Court
A.Ramakrishnan vs P.A.Lakshminarayanan on 20 February, 2013
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:20.02.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.1428 of 2006 A.Ramakrishnan .. Appellant vs 1.P.A.Lakshminarayanan 2.M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, C/o.Motor Third Party Claims Offices, No.38, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the Judgment and award passed in O.P.No.1799 of 1999, dated 22.09.2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.T.G.Balachandran For Respondent : Mr.S.Arinkumar for R2 Ex-parte for R1 JUDGMENT
On 14.01.1999, at about 07.15 a.m., when the claimant was standing on the Nelson Manickam Road, the 1st respondents lorry bearing Registration No.TMD-9473, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant. Hence, the claimant has filed the claim against the owner and insurer of the lorry.
2.The Insurance Company had filed counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent submitted that the accident had not been committed by the driver of the lorry. It was submitted that the driver of the lorry did not have a valid driving licence to drive the lorry. Further, the F.I.R had been lodged after an inordinate delay. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries, mode of treatment and disability was not admitted.
3.On verifying the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?; (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation?. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses had been examined and ten documents were marked namely: O.P.Chit; Discharge Medical Summary, F.I.R, Rough Sketch; Charge sheet; Disability certificate and X ray. On the side of the respondents, no witness, no documents.
4.PW.1, had adduced evidence that on 14.01.1999, at about 07.15 a.m., when he was standing on the Nelson Manickam Road, the 1st respondent's lorry dashed against him. He further stated that his spinal cord had been fractured and he had been hospitalized at K.M.C Hospital and at a private hospital for a period of 20 days and during medical treatment period, a surgical operation was conducted.
5.P.W.3, Doctor had spoken on the same line of PW.1, regarding nature of injuries and mode of treatment. He further stated that the claimants right leg had been shortened by 1 = cms and certified that the disability sustained by petitioner was 50%. PW.2, the Investigation Officer (Traffic) adduced evidence that the offending vehicle driver had pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court.
6.On considering the evidence of witnesses and on scrutinizing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.72,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
7.Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed the above appeal.
8.The highly competent counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on his shoulder and hip. Hence, he had been hospitalized for about 20 days as an inpatient. A surgical operation was conducted on his hip and a steel rod had been fixed in the operated area. The right leg of the claimant had been shortened by 1 = cms and the Doctor had assessed the disability at 50%. The claimant was a fish cart driver and after the accident, he is unable to do his avocation as a fish cart driver. Therefore, he is entitled to receive adequate compensation under the head of loss of earning.
9.The very competent counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the claimant had sustained simple injuries and he had undergone treatment at Government Hospital. However, an adequate compensation had been awarded to the claimant.
10.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability. However, the quantum of compensation is on the lower side, since the claimant's right leg had been shortened by 1 = cms and a surgical operation had been conducted on his hip and the Doctor had assessed the disability at 50%. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant adequate compensation to the claimant. Hence, this Court reassess the compensation as follows: Rs.75,000/- is awarded for disability; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- towards transport; Rs.5,000/- towards attender charges; Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment period and Rs.17,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort. Since the claimants right leg had been shortened by 1 = cms. In total, this Court awards Rs.1,32,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. After submitting initial compensation of a sum of Rs.72,000/- this Court grants a sum of Rs.60,000/- as additional compensation as it is found to be appropriate. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation. This Court directs the United India Insurance Company herein to execute the said award within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
11.After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of O.P.No.1799 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals if any.
12.In the result, the above appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in O.P.No.1799 of 1999, dated 22.09.2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai, is modified. No costs.
20.02.2013 ub Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No C.S.KARNAN.J. ub To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.1428 of 200620.02.2013