R. Banumathi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs. 3,20,000/-, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) has preferred this appeal.
2. Relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:- (i) The Respondent-Claimant travelled as passenger in the MTC bus bearing registration No. TN-01 1312 and the said bus stopped at Brindha theatre and the driver suddenly moved the bus. Due to which, the Claimant fell down and sustained fracture injuries in the left hip and laceration and also abrasions all over the body. After the accident, the Claimant had taken treatment as inpatient in Raja Nursing Home and then taken treatment at Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of MTC bus driver, the Claimant has filed the claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
(ii) Opposing the claim, MTC has filed counter denying the accident that at Brindha theatre stop no such accident was took place and the driver and conductor have completed all scheduled trips and no such accident on their duty was reported. The delay in lodging the complaint and registration of FIR creates a doubt as to whether the accident had taken place in the manner as alleged by the Claimant. Since the vehicle was not involved in the accident and MTC driver was not responsible for the accident, MTC is not liable to pay compensation to the Claimant. MTC also disputed the age, income of the Respondent-Claimant and the nature of injuries sustained by her and percentage of disability.
(iii) Before the Tribunal, the Claimant examined herself as P.W.1. Dr. Saichandran was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the Respondent the driver and conductor on duty were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 who have denied the accident as alleged by the Claimant. Based upon the registration of FIR and the evidence of P.W.1, Tribunal held that the bus driver was responsible for the accident and held that the Appellant-Corporation is liable to pay compensation to personal injuries sustained by the Claimant. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,20,000/- for personal injuries sustained by the Claimant.
3. Assailing the quantum of compensation, the learned Counsel Mr. S.V. Vasanthakumar, appearing for the Appellant-Corporation has submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding exorbitant sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- as compensation. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under two separate heads viz. permanent disability and loss of earning power which is not permissible. It was further argued that even in the absence of acceptable evidence, Tribunal has awarded Rs. 36,000/- for loss of earning and the same is to be reduced.
4. The learned Counsel Mr. V. Mohan Choudry, appearing for the Respondent-Claimant has submitted that the Claimant has sustained fracture of left hip and had undergone three to four operations and therefore the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable warranting interference.
5. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail as to how the accident had occurred, who is responsible for the accident and who is liable to pay the compensation. It is for the reason the Tribunal has recorded the findings in favour of the Claimant. Further, these findings are not under challenge. Only the quantum of compensation is in dispute.
6. The Claimant was travelling as passenger in MTC bus and while alighting from the bus had fallen down and sustained fracture injury in the left hip. Immediately after the accident, the Claimant had taken treatment as inpatient in Raju Nursing Home from 29.12.1997 to 31.12.1997 and then she was shifted to Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai on 31.12.1997 where she had taken treatment as inpatient. In her evidence, P.W.1 has stated that even after the treatment, she is not in a position to walk and carry on her normal avocation. The Claimant had further stated that she is unable to use Indian toilet and unable to climb stairs and also board any bus or other vehicles.
7. P.W.2 Dr. Saichandran had examined the Claimant and noticed hipbone fracture with plates inserted. Upon examination of the Claimant, P.W.2 has fixed the permanent disability at 70%. In his evidence P.W.2 has stated that the Claimant has difficulty in walking and that she is permanently disabled and P.W.2 has assessed the permanent disability at 70%.
8. The Tribunal on the basis of P.Ws.1 and 2 evidence and on the basis of Ex.P5 disability certificate awarded a lump sum Rs. 1,50,000/- for permanent disability. Having awarded compensation amount for permanent disability, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of earning power. By and large, awarding compensation for permanent disability is inclusive of compensation for loss of earning power. Therefore, the compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded for loss of earning power cannot be sustained.
9. Though, the Claimant is said to have taken treatment as inpatient in Raju Nursing Home, the Tribunal has not chosen to award any compensation for medical expenses. Though, the Claimant is said to have taken treatment for number of days, no amount was awarded for attendant's charges.
10. In Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corporation 1999 ACJ 10 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be "just". It has to be borne in mind that the compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. ...Quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance with the injury.... But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just.
11. In my considered view awarding of lump sum amount of compensation for Permanent Disability and also awarding compensation for loss of earning power is without any basis. Having regard to nature of injuries and treatment taken by the Claimant and percentage of disability, the compensation amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- is reduced to Rs. 2,70,000/- under the following heads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In the Judgment, though the Tribunal has awarded interest payable at 9% p.a., by perusal of the decree, it is seen 12% p.a. interest was awarded. The decree appears to be in a printed form which contains interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Since, in the Judgment only 9% p.a. interest was awarded, the compensation amount awarded is payable only with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
13. In the result, The Order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(V Judge) Small Causes Court, Chennai dated 18.01.2002 in M.C.O.P. No. 1686 of 1998 is modified and this C.M.A. is allowed in part.
The compensation amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 2,70,000/-, which is payable with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition.
The Appellant-Insurance Co. is said to have deposited the entire award amount before the Tribunal. Out of which, the Respondent/Claimant is said to have withdrawn 50% of the amount. The Claimant is entitled to withdraw the balance amount payable to her (as per the Judgment in this Appeal) along with accrued interest.
The excess amount lying to the credit of MCOP. No. 1686 of 1998 is ordered to be refunded to the Appellant-Corporation.
There is no order as to costs in this Appeal.