THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA C.M.A.No.752 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.4087 of 2017 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Branch Manager, 1st Floor, No.6, West Mada Koil St.
Madurai. ... Appellant / 2nd Respondent versus
1. Palanisamy … 1st respondent / petitioner
2. M/s.Kannalagan & Co. Rep. by its Manager, No.56, Tamil Sangam Road, Madurai – 1. … 2nd respondent / 1st respondent Prayer : This Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2005 made in O.P.No.620 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, Palanisamy, aged about 36 years, working as Senior Grade Lecturer in Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, Sathyamangalam, earning a sum of Rs.18,292/- p.m., met with an accident on 27.11.2002 in which he sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition in O.P.No.620 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Krishnagiri, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
2. As against the claim made, the Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- as compensation, along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, the break-up of which is as hereunder :-
For Injuries - Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of income - Rs. 20,000/- Transport expenses - Rs. 10,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 10,000/- Attendant charges - Rs. 10,000/- Future Medical expenses - Rs. 50,000/- Pain and sufferings - Rs.1,00,000/- Permanent disability - Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of earning capacity - Rs. 40,000/-
Total - Rs.5,40,000/-
Challenging the quantum of compensation as excessive, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that though the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been award towards injuries, the award of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability is unsustainable; the award of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings is also on the higher side. Therefore, the award requires to be interfered with.
5. A perusal of the evidence available on record as also the findings recorded by the Tribunal reveals that P.W.2, the Doctor, in his evidence has stated that the petitioner sustained fracture of C5, C6 and D1 bones over neck; there is also a fracture of bones on the right side to the extent of 3 to 10 bones; membrane in the spine was torn; muscles in the neck portion has been pinched and, hence, the neck could not be turned and due to the fracture in the spine, he could not bend forward and it would also not be possible for the injured to carry weight; due to the fracture in the rib bone, there is difficulty in breathing. Therefore, the doctor has assessed the disability at 50%.
6. The petitioner is a lecturer; the duties of the lecturer calls for addressing the students with frequent turning on either side. Due to the injuries sustained, it would be difficult for the claimant to carry on his professional duties, at it would be difficult for him to turn his neck frequently. Therefore, the injuries suffered by the claimant are severe in nature, which cannot be disputed. Though the injuries sustained are severe, however, the Tribunal has not adopted multiplier method for awarding compensation under the head disability, but has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/, considering the severity of the injuries and the disability suffered, could not be termed to be excessive or on the higher side.
7. Due to the injuries over the spine and neck, it is evident from the records as also the evidence of the doctor that the petitioner feels pain at all times. The injuries sustained by the claimant, as already pointed above, are severe in nature. The injuries would have definitely caused much pain and suffering to the claimant and inconvenience in his daily routines. Considering the said fact, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings and Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards injuries sustained cannot be said to be excessive. Even though there is no loss of job, the employability elsewhere in job market would be a loss. If multiplier method of quantification in respect of loss of earning capacity is considered, the award under three heads relating to injuries will not be excessive.
8. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are concerned, they seem to be rather conservative and are not on the higher side. The Tribunal has appreciated the entire materials on record and has awarded the compensation and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with the order passed by the Tribunal.
9. The civil miscellaneous appeal, being bereft of any merits is liable to be dismissed and, accordingly, the same is dismissed confirming the award dated 29.04.2005 made in O.P.No.620 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Krishnagiri. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10. The appellant/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, less the amount, if any, already deposited, along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of the claim petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall transfer the same to the bank account of the claimant directly through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
15.02.2017 Index : Yes / No ogy/GLN To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Krishnagiri.
Dr.S.VIMALA, J.
ogy/GLN
C.M.A.No.752 of 2017
15.02.2017