The appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of Rs.3,71,000/- granted to the first respondent/claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on 24.2.1998.
2. The case of the first respondent/claimant was that while he was returning from his office by bi-cycle, an auto driven in rash and negligently by the second respondent hit the petitioner and in the result, the first respondent was thrown away on the road and suffered head injuries. He was immediately taken to hospital and latter referred to Kovai Medical Centre for further treatment. For the injuries sustained by him, the claimant sought for a sum of Rs.10,000,00/-. The said claim petition was resisted by the appellant.
3. `On appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the auto and awarded a sum of Rs.3,71,000/- in the following manner.
4. Mr.R.Sunilkumar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that firstly the Tribunal wrongly fixed the liability on the insurance company as the second respondent, driver did not have valid driving license to drive the passenger vehicle. Secondly he attacked the award contending that a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- was awarded towards disability and pain and suffering and the same was on the higher side and thirdly the first respondent/claimant is still in service in Electricity Board and there is no possibility for any loss towards income. Hence he pleaded for reduction of the compensation. On the other hand, Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant submitted that the claimant suffered injuries in the brain and that factor was taken into consideration by the Tribunal and that was the reason, a sum of Rs.3,71,000/- was awarded towards compensation.
5. A perusal of the award would show that the Tribunal considered the fact that the second respondent, auto driver was having valid driving license meant for driving passenger vehicle. When the auto driver was having license to drive passenger vehicle, the contention of the Insurance Company that he did not have proper effective license has got no substance. The said contention of the Insurance Company was correctly negatived by the Tribunal and hence this court does not interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in this regard.
6. As far as quantum is concerned, what has to be seen is the nature of the injury and which part of the human body was affected. Here is the case where the most essential part of the body namely brain was affected and there is no dispute with regard to that aspect. In fact the same was proved by Exs.P4, Ex.P9, Ex.P10 and Ex.P.11. P.W.2 Doctor also spoke about the nature of injuries and fixed 50% disability. 50% disability cannot be termed as physical disability. As the brain was affected it has to be termed as physical and neurological disability. When the nervous system of the body is affected, it would amount to affecting the whole system of the body. Hence, this court cannot view the matter like an ordinary case. Hence the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2000/- for one percent disability and for 50% disability a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted.
7. The Tribunal after seeing the claimant in person and also seeing the demur of the witness, observed in the award as follows:
@ jiyapy; Vw;gl;l fhaj;jpd; fhuzkhf "hgf kwjp Vw;;gl;ljhf kUj;Jth; rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;sij cWjp bra;a[k; tpjkhf kDjhuh; ,ay;ghdtuhf fhzg;glhky; ,ay;ghdtuhf ngr ,ayhjtifapy; fhzg;gl;lhh;/ vdnt kDjhuh; bjhlh;e;J gzpapy; ,Ue;jhYk; gzpapy; ke;jkhf epiyapy; gzpg[hpa[k; epiyf;F js;sg;gl;Lk;. me;j mst[f;F epue;ju CzKk; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ/ fha rhd;W k/rh/M/4y; ,uz;L bfhL';fhaKk; 2 rhjhuz fhaKk; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ K:isapy; tPf;fk; Vw;gl;L rpfpr;ir nkw; bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ k/rh/M.10 o!;rhh;$; rk;khp K:yk; mwpaKofpwJ/@
8. As far as the pain and suffering is concerned, the pain is recurring one apart from the pain suffered during the accident and treatment and hence it is appropriate, considering the special nature of the injury, a sum of Rs.50,000 is granted. From the above said findings this court able to understand the trauma under went by the claimant. Given status of the claimant it is impossible for him to get any promotion in the service. Hence a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses.
8. A sum of Rs.6000/- was awarded towards loss of income during treatment. Learned counsel for the appellant rightly pointed out that there cannot be any loss of income as he continued to be in the service. Hence the said sum is deleted. However this court finds that the tribunal awarded Rs.1,65,000/- based on Ex.P9 series medical bills and the same confirmed. This court also finds that no amount was given towards transportation expenses and for extra nourishment. Hence a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment and a sum of Rs.1000/- towards transportation are awarded. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:
1. Towards disability .. Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- 3. Towards future medical expenses Rs. 40,000/- 4. Towards extra nourishment Rs. 15,000/- 5. Towards Transportation Rs. 1,000/- 6. Towards Medical expenses Rs.1,65,000/- --------------- Total Rs.3,71,000/- ----------------
9. The aforesaid amount of Rs.3,71,000/- would carry 9% interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The above appeal is disposed of with the above terms. However there will be no order as to costs.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant already deposited the award amount along with interest and costs. Therefore the Tribunal is directed to pay the entire amount to the claimant within ten days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
19.8.2009 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No vk To: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court) Fast Track-2,Gobichettipalayam. N.KIRUBAKARAN,J. vk CMA No.1657 of 2002 19.8.2009