This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant / United India Insurance Company Limited against the Judgment and Decree, dated 17.10.2006 made in MCOP.No.2514 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Thiruchirappallai.
2. The facts of the case of the claimant are as follows: It is a case of injury, due to the accident, which took place on 15.12.2002, at about 22.30 hours, when the first respondent / claimant was travelling as a pillion rider of one Sethuraman's TVS 50 bearing Registration No.TN 45/L 3102 and proceeding in the extreme left side of the Puthur road towards east to west direction. At that time, a Tanker Lorry bearing Regn. No.TN 45 V 7358 belonging to the second respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, coming from south to north dashed against the above said TVS 50. Due to impact of the accident, the first respondent fell down from the TVS 50 and he has sustained multiple grievous injuries, particularly multiple fractures in his left leg and severe crush injuries, severe injuries on his forehead and skull fracture and also his upper teeth were broken. Immediately he was taken to Government Headquarters Hospital, Trichy and thereafter, he was admitted at Maruthi Hospital, Trichy and was taking treatment till the filing of the claim petition. The claimant spent a huge amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for medical expenses and he is not able to work and walk as before. At the time of accident, the first respondent/claimant was aged about 17 years and he was studying Diploma Course in Civil Engineering. Hence, the first respondent/claimant represented by his father viz., K. Subramani, filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.2514 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirapalli) seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3.The appellant / Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal and submitted that the accident was an outcome of claimant's rider's irresponsible rash and negligent driving, that too, in a busy four road junction. Further, they have denied the injury, treatment and disability. The second respondent herein is colluding with the claimant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Notice sent to the first respondent / claimant returned with an endorsement 'no such addressee?. There is no representation on behalf of the first respondent / claimant. The second respondent / first respondent had remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, five witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and seventeen documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.17 were marked and on the side of the respondents, neither any document was marked nor any witness was examined.
6.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side and also appreciating the evidence on record awarded a sum of Rs.2,30,533/- as compensation.
7. Aggrieved Against which, the appellant / the United India Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had failed to note that the partial permanent disability assessed is highly inflated and exaggerated by both PW.2 and PW.3, in order to help the claimant to get higher compensation. He further contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the fractured bones have united properly and hence, the assessment of 42% by PW-3 is excessive and exaggerated. He further contended that the Tribunal had erred in awarding a compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.1,500/- (per percentage) x 72%) for the partial permanent disability of 72%, without following the various Judgments awarding compensation of Rs.1,000/- per percentage of permanent disability and the Tribunal had erred in awarding a huge and disproportionate award without following the principles laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company.
10. PW.1 in his evidence deposed that in the accident question, the claimant has sustained fracture in his left leg and also sustained injury in his head, due to which, he cannot sit, stand and walk properly. He further deposed that due to accident, there is shortening of left leg to an extent of + inches. Because of the injury sustained in the head, his smelling sense in the nose was reduced and his upper teeth was broken. PW.2 - Dr.V.R. Ravi, Ortho Doctor in his evidence deposed that the injured had sustained fracture of two bones in his left leg and he assessed the permanent disability as 42% and gave Ex.P9 - disability certificate to that effect. PW.3 ? Dr.Mathivanan, Neuro Doctor has also issued permanent disability certificate
- Ex.P11 assessing 30% permanent disability.
11. From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the first respondent/claimant had sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body and as per Ex.P6-medical bills, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,535/- towards medical expenses, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is reasonable. Further, it is seen that the first respondent/claimant was not able to do the work, as he did earlier. As per Ex.P.9 and Ex.P11-disability certificates issued by the Doctors, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 72% and has awarded a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- towards permanent disability, which in the considered opinion of this Court is also reasonable. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony, pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation Charges and Rs.2,000/- towards Extra nourishment. In total, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,30,533/- as compensation to the first respondent/claimant, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is just and reasonable and the same is confirmed.
12.In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable compensation. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or irregularity in the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.2514 of 2013, dated 17.10.2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Thiruchirappalli, is hereby confirmed. The appellant/United Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, less the amount already deposited if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the petitioner is aged about 17 years at the time of accident, he may attain majority now, and hence, first respondent / claimant, is permitted to withdraw the award amount along with accrued interest and costs, on production of certificate of age proof and on filing proper application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Thiruchirappallai.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.