IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.08.2017 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE S.VIMALA
C.M.A.Nos.2927 and 2928 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.17230 of 2017 CMA in 2927 of 2017 L.Jayakumar .... Appellant Vs.
1. The Managing Director, Metro Transport Corporation Limited, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2.
2. B.Paramasivam. .... Respondents (Ex-parte in Lower Court) CMA in 2928 of 2017 Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Chennai Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. .... Appellant Vs.
1. L.Jayakumar
2. B.Paramasivam .... Respondents (Ex-parte in Lower Court)
Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated
27.07.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.557 of 2004, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, The Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC IV, Poonamallee.
For Appellant in CMA No.2927 of 2017 : Mr.J.Mahalingam & 1st respondent in CMA 2928 of 2017 For 1st respondent in CMA 2927 of 2017 & Appellant in CMA No.2928 of 2017 : Mr.M.Deivanandam C O M M O N J U D G M E N T C.M.A.No.2928 of 2017 filed by the Transport Corporation has been taken along with the appeal in C.M.A.No.2927 of 2017 filed by the claimant. While the Transport Corporation challenges the quantum awarded by the tribunal as excessive, the claimant challenges the award passed by the tribunal as inadequate.
2. The claimant, Jayakumar, aged 22 years, Machine Operator, earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month, met with an accident on 20.09.2004. According to the claimant, he was walking in Anna Salai from North to South, the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation hit against the petitioner due to which he suffered permanent disablement. Therefore, the claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
3. The Tribunal, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.81,000/-, the break-up details of which are as hereunder :-
While appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the excessiveness of the compensation, challenging the inadequacy of the compensation, the claimant has filed the other appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the Transport Corporation submits that the award of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings and the compensation towards disability at Rs.30,000/- and the compensation towards loss of income at Rs.18,000/- are arbitrary and excessive. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation that in the absence of any proof relating to monthly income, fixation of Rs.3,000/- as monthly income is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the Transport Corporation submitted that any compensation in excess of Rs.25,000/-, is highly excessive and therefore, the compensation needs to be reduced proportionately.
5. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that during the period of treatment, the claimant was completely bedridden and the fracture sustained on the leg and the amputation of the toes would have made the claimant suffer in pain and, the non-adoption of multiplier method is bad. Further, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1998 SC 859, it is submitted that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- ought to have been awarded towards pain and sufferings.
6. In order to appreciate the contention raised on both sides, it is necessary to look into the period of treatment, nature of injury and the nature of expenses incurred by the claimant.
7. The records reveal that the claimant was initially admitted at MIOT Hopital, Chennai and thereafter, admitted in Royapettah Government Hospital, Chennai. It is his case that he is not able to stand. The claimant is aged 22 years and the nature of injury, more particularly, removal of 2nd and 3rd toes alone in the left foot cannot render the claimant immobile. The said injury would not preclude the claimant from standing and executing the work.
8. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, the claimant would have taken treatment for a period of six months during which time, he would have suffered considerable pain and also suffered loss of earning. Considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/-. The Doctor PW-2 Dr.Saichandran has spoken about the disablement suffered and he has assessed the disability at 35%. However, the Tribunal, on consideration of the same has awarded disablement compensation in a sum of Rs.30,000/-.
9. On a careful perusal of the material records and taking into consideration the award passed by the Tribunal and the findings recorded therein, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has adopted the correct method for quantifying the disablement compensation. Further, the compensation awarded towards loss of earning is also just and reasonable.
10. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that pain and suffering should have been awarded on the higher side, however, the amputation being only on the toes, the Tribunal has considered the said fact and has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings, which, in the considered opinion of this Court is just and reasonable. Though medical expenses should have been granted on the higher side, however, considering the fact that the medical bills have been produced only to the extent of Rs.1,000/- and the further fact that the claimant has underwent treatment at Government Hospital, Royapettah, no enhancement is required on the said head.
11. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation that the monthly income is fixed on the higher side, however, the said argument deserves to be dismissed, keeping in mind the fact that the accident happened in the year 2004 and compensation has been awarded only to the extent of Rs.81,000/= and the cost of living and inflation has risen manifold and, therefore, the amount awarded would be a minuscule at this belated point of time. Therefore, no interference is called for with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
12. For all the reasons aforesaid, the appeals lack merit and accordingly the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal are dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
13. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest and costs, as awarded by the claims Tribunal, less the amount, if any, already deposited, to the credit of the claim petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the amount directly to the bank account of the claimant through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereafter.
04.08.2017 kv/GLN Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To Motor Accident Claims Tribunal The Additional District & Sessions Judge FTC IV, Poonamallee.
Dr.S.VIMALA, J.
Kv/GLN C.M.A.No.2927 and 2928 of 2017 04.08.2017