Madras High Court
Ranganayaki vs Valli on 7 October, 2013
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.10.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.2433 of 2004 Ranganayaki ... Appellant Vs. 1.Valli 2.United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Nagapattinam ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Nagapattinam. For Appellant : Mrs.S.T.P.Kuilmozhi For Respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy for R2 R1-Ex parte - - - J U D G M E N T
The appellant / claimant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Nagapattinam.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Nagapattinam, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.
3. It was submitted that on 29.05.2001, at about 11.00 a.m., when the claimant was travelling on a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.TN51 A8469, along with plastic boxes, to purchase fish and while the said lorry was proceeding on Poovathadi Main Road, the driver of the lorry had applied sudden brakes and due to which the vehicle capsized. As a result, she had sustained injuries. Hence, the claimant had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the Mini Lorry bearing registration No.TN51 A8469.
4. The second respondent Insurance Company had filed a counter affidavit and resisted the claim petition. They had submitted that the driver of the lorry did not have a valid driving licence. Further, the claimant and others had travelled on the goods vehicle as unauthorized passengers and as such the claimant was not entitled to receive any compensation from them since the policy conditions of insurance had been violated. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, occupation and income, nature of injuries, mode and period of treatment and disability were also not admitted.
5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed an issue for consideration namely:
i. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? and who is liable to pay the compensation?
6. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9 namely FIR, accident register, M.V.I's report, photo with negative, copy of fair complaint, discharge summaries, disability certificate and X'ray. On the respondents' side no witness was let in and no document was marked.
7. P.W.1 claimant had adduced evidence that on 29.05.2001, at about 11.00 a.m., when she was travelling on a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.TN51 A8469, along with plastic boxes, for purchasing of fish and while the said lorry was proceeding on Poovathadi Main Road, the driver of the lorry had applied sudden brakes and due to which the vehicle capsized. As a result, she had sustained bone fracture injuries on her left hand, skull and hip. Further, she had adduced that she had been hospitalized at Government Hospital, Nagapattinam as an inpatient from 29.05.2001 to 23.06.2001.
8. P.W.2 Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained 48% disability and she had undergone a surgical operation on her left hand.
9. On considering the evidences of the witnesses and on perusing the exhibits marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.43,800/- as compensation to the claimant and directed the respondents to pay the said award amount, jointly or severally, together with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs.
10. Not being satisfied by the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on her left hand and also sustained head injuries. She had undergone medical treatment at Government and Private Hospitals, as inpatient for a longtime. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 48% after examining the claimant. After the accident, the claimant is unable to do her avocation as a fish vendor. Hence, the very competent counsel prays the Court to grant adequate compensation to the claimant.
12. The very competent counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the claimant was travelling in the cabin of the mini lorry as an unauthorized passenger and as such she is not entitled to receive any compensation from the Insurance Company since there is gross violation of policy conditions. The Tribunal had erroneously held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Further, the Doctor had assessed the disability at 48%, which is on the higher side as the claimant had sustained simple injuries. Therefore, the highly competent counsel requests this court to dismiss the appeal since adequate compensation has been awarded and the same had been paid to her.
13. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels 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 and liability. However, the quantum of compensation is on the lower side, since the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries as per doctor's evidence and it is also seen that a surgical operation was conducted and the Doctor had assessed the disability at 48%. Therefore, this Court reassesses the compensation as follows:
i. Rs.30,000/- is awarded for disability, ii. Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering, iii. Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards transport expenses, iv. Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards attender charges, v. Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards nutrition, vi. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of earning during medical treatment period, vii. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses, and viii. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort.
In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the claimant. After subtracting the initial compensation amount of Rs.43,800/-, this Court awards Rs.46,200/- as additional compensation to the claimant, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.
14. This Court directs the second respondent Insurance Company to execute this Court's Judgment, by way of depositing the additional compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Nagapattinam, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
15. 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 M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Nagapattinam, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment.
16. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the Judgment and decree dated 19.04.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Nagapattinam, is modified. No costs.
07.10.2013
(2/2)
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
krk
To:
1.The Additional Sub Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Additional Sub Court, Nagapattinam
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court
Madras
C.S.KARNAN, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.2433 of 2004
07.10.2013
(2/2)