Madras High Court
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation vs Sakthi Sundar on 20 January, 2010
Author: R.Sudhakar
Bench: R.Sudhakar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/01/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A(MD)No.46 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 TamilNadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)Limited, represented through its Managing Director, Bye-pass Road, Madurai. ... Appellant Vs. Sakthi Sundar, minor, represented by his natural guardian,next friend and his father Ashok Kumar ... Respondent PRAYER Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2008 made in M.A.C.O.P.No.196 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Virudhunagar. !For Appellant ... Mr.Royce Emmanuel ^ :JUDGMENT
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Madurai) Limited, Madurai has filed this Appeal, aggrieved over the award, dated 21.08.2008 made in M.A.C.O.P.No.196 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Sub Court), Virudhunagar.
2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The accident in this case happened on 04.04.2006. The injured/claimant, a minor, aged about 17 years old, at the time of accident, was run over by the front wheel of the transport corporation bus and he suffered the following injuries:
1. Swelling + Posterior lateral aspect of left thigh.
Abrasion + over the lateral aspect, blackening of skin +.
2. Laceration + anterior spect 7x5x2 cms left lower limb. Muscle exposed, active bleedings+.
3. laceration extending the medical aspect of leg to posterior region below the left knee joint. Active bleedings+ contamination+.
4. Laceration+ over the left foot extending from below medial malleous upto the great toe exposing. Underlying soft tissues bleeding +. Fenoral /Popliteral /DFT +.
He was treated on Meenakshi Mission Hospital from 04.04.2006 to 15.05.2006. He claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-.
3. In support of the claim, the father of the injured was examined as P.W.1 and the doctor who assessed the disability of the injured claimant was examined as P.W.2. Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, one Chinnasamy, driver of the transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked.
4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the transport corporation bus and the liability fixed on the transport corporation to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and such finding is confirmed.
5. The only contention raised at the time of admission is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. In this case, the minor boy suffered from grievous injuries as already extracted above and was in hospital for treatment from 04.04.2006 to 15.05.2006 as inpatient. It is needless to state that he has to take further treatment by way of physiotherapy. He would need further time to recover from the grievous injuries and for that he necessarily needs some sort of physiotherapy. The claimant at the time of the accident was in his prime youth. The disability has been assessed at 69% by P.W.2/doctor and the same is marked as Ex.P9. The medical expenses were claimed as per records and that is not disputed by the appellant. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 9%.
1. Disability compensation at 69% - Rs. 69,000/-
2. medical expenses as per documents - Rs. 2,14,801/-
3. Extra nourishment - Rs. 10,000/-
4. transportation - Rs. 1,000/-
5. Pain and suffering - Rs. 10,000/-
------------------
total - Rs. 3,04,801/-
------------------
7. In appeal, the only plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is some confusion as to whether the injured claimant suffered injury in the left leg or in the right leg. This is because in his evidence, P.W.2 has stated that in the right leg, there is laceration of the skin from the upper thigh downwards. In another place, he has stated that his skin grafted in the right thigh is not healed properly and therefore, the nature of injury itself is in dispute.
8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation or the award passed by the Tribunal, merely on the plea that there are certain discrepancies in the evidence of doctor/P.W.2, and for the following reasons:
1. The appellant does not dispute the accident and the medical documents, namely, the medical records/Ex.P3 and wound certificate/Ex.P5 issued by the private hospital and Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 discharge summary and medical bills. None of the documents that has been produced before this Court show that the injury is on the right leg as stated by P.W.2/Doctor. If the appellant wants to convince this Court that there is a serious error in the identity of the injury, the medical records ought to have been furnished before this Court.
2. The terminology 'right side' used by the doctor can either be, out of confusion in the case of improper recording of the evidence or misreading of the documents. When the tribunal has extracted Ex.P3 which clearly shows that the injury is to the left thigh region and below. It is for the appellant to prove before this Court that prima facie there is an error between the documents and the evidence. Having not furnished the documentary evidence to prove the facts as alleged, this Court is not inclined to hold that there is serious error in the award calling interference by this Court. The word right side occurring in two places, can at best be called as a transcription mistake or a statement by oversight. For that reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. There is no serious dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The major amount granted is only towards medical expenses, which is supported by documents. In this case no amount has been granted towards attendant charges, considering the fact that the injured claimant is a young boy and represented by his father, who has to spend considerable time to attend to all his needs.
9. Taking into consideration all these factors, this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the award of the tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. There is no dispute in respect of interest.
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
vsn To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Virudhunagar.