Madras High Court
Minor Tamizhmeena @ Meena vs T.N.S.T.C. Ltd on 22 June, 2015
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
C.M.A.No.2395 of 2013
Minor Tamizhmeena @ Meena
Rep. by guardian Next Friend
Father Veeramuthu ... Appellant/Claimant
vs.
T.N.S.T.C. Ltd.,
(Division I),
Villupuram. ... Respondent / Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act against the award passed in MACTOP No.101 of 2007 dated 20.09.2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.
For Appellant : Mr.E.C.Ramesh
For Respondent : Mr.P.Paramasivadoss
JUDGMENT
The poor girl was playing with her friend without knowing what the fate has got stock for her. When the appellant was playing with her friend, the respondent bus driven rash and negligently hit the appellant and ran over her left leg resulting in sustaining of multiple injuries in all parts of the left leg. Therefore, the claim petition.
2. On contest, the tribunal held that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the transport corporation bus and erroneously awarded a meagre amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation, without application of mind. The said award is being challenged before this Court by the appellant by way of this appeal.
3. Heard Mr.E.C.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and Mr.P.Paramasivadoss, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Transport Corporation.
3. The appellant/claimant is present before this Court and this court could see her left leg is completely spoiled and twisted unabled her not to walk properly. The very look itself appears that the left leg is completely spoiled and twisted and gives an ugly look and disfigurement of the leg.
4. The claimant sustained compound communited bone fracture left supracondylar (femur) with closed both bone fracture left leg with degloving injury with fracture left. PW2 doctor, deposed based on medical evidence namely Ex.P6 discharge summary issued by the General Hospital, Pondy, Ex.P7 discharge summary issued by the Government Hospital, Villupuram, Ex.P8 OP sheet issued by the Government Hospital, Villupuram, Ex.P10 disability certificate, Ex.P11 x ray. PW2 determined the disability at 75%. The tribunal observed that only in case of amputation, 75% disability would arise and reduced the same to 55% and awarded Rs.55,000/-. The left leg is twisted and looks like a spring. In fact, even amputation would have been better position than having this kind of disabled look. In the absence of any contra medical evidence, the tribunal should not have reduced the disability to 55%. In any event, this court takes 55% as the disability even though this court is convinced that 70% should be the disability, as deposed by PW2 - doctor. Awarding Rs.55,000/- for this kind of 55% disability is atrocious, unreasonable and it shocks the concious of this Court. Therefore, the award of Rs.55,000/- towards disability is set aside.
5. The appellant is present before this court and she is unable to walk alone and she has to depend upon her mother or father to walk. In those circumstances, her disability to walk is almost 100%. Thus, this court determines the loss of earning power at 50%. The disability sustained by the claimant and inability to walk independently makes this court to apply multiplier method. One another factor is that the claimant, after the accident was hospitalised for more than four months, i.e. 11.05.2005 to 14.09.2005. The prolonged admission into the hospital would prove the grievous nature of injuries and also the disability sustained by the claimant. Because of the injuries, the claimant could not continue her studies also.
6. The claimant was 10 years old at the time of accident who was playing with her friend. As rightly referred by Mr.E.C.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Mekala vs M. Malathi & Anr on 25 April, 2014 reported in 2014 (2) TN MAC 6 determined the notional income of a 16 years old student who was studying plus one as Rs.10,000/- per month and added 50% towards future prospects determining the monthly income at Rs.15,000/- per month. Considering the fracture in both the legs of the victim in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court determined the monthly income at Rs.15,000/- including future prospects.
7. Following the above said judgment, this Court determines the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-, as determined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and adding 50% towards future prospects, the monthly income is arrived at Rs.12,000/-. The appropriate multiplier according to the age of the claimant is 15 and the loss of income is derived as follows -
Rs.8,000 + 50% = Rs.12,000 x 12 x 15 x 55/100 = Rs.11,88,000/-
8. The 10 years old girl definitely would have been shocked and would have undergone mental agony and pain because of the ran over of the bus on her left leg and therefore suitable amount towards sustaining of mental agony has to be compensated. The tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards pain & sufferings and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. For loss of amenities, this court awards a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. For loss of marital prospects, though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, this court awards a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as no person would come forward to marry the appellant with her disfigured and spring like leg. She was admitted in the hospital for four months as inpatient and moreover the claimant needs constant support for moving out. However, the tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attender charges and the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. No amount was awarded under the head extra nourishment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded as the claimant continued to take treatment for four months as inpatient and nature of injuries sustained by her would definitely lead more nourishment. Towards transport expenses only a sum of Rs.2,850/- was awarded and the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Thus, the award of Rs.1,20,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.17,63,000/-, rounded off to Rs.17,50,000/-, break-up as follows -
(1) Loss of income Rs.11,88,000/- (2) Pain & Sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/- (3) Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000/- (4) Loss of marital prospects Rs. 2,00,000/- (5) Attender charges Rs. 50,000/- (6) Extra nourishemnt Rs. 1,00,000/- (7) Transportation Rs. 25,000/- -------------------- Total Rs.17,63,000/- ============== Rounded off to Rs.17,50,000/-.
The rate of interest awarded by the tribunal @ 7.5% per annum shall remain unaltered.
9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,20,000/-to Rs.17,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. No costs.
10. The respondent/transport corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation awarded by this Court alongwith interest and costs, on or before 30.07.2015. In the event of failure on the part of the respondent/Transport Corporation in depositing the amount awarded by this Court, on the aforesaid date, the Chairman cum Managing Director, the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer shall appear before this Court on that day. Out of the amount awarded by this Court, the tribunal is directed to disburse only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the appellant/claimant and deposit the balance amount in any one of the Nationalised Bank in interest bearing Fixed Deposit, initially for a period of ten years and thereafter renew periodically . The appellant is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on the fixed deposit, once in two months.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant is directed to pay the requisite court fee for the enhanced compensation within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. Call the matter on 31.07.2015 for reporting compliance. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order directly to the appellant/claimant, free of cost.
22.06.2015
Index : Yes/No
rgr
To
The II Additional Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Villupuram.
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
rgr
C.M.A.No.2395 of 2013
22.06.2015