The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 15.06.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.670 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs.10,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.
2.Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/Petitioner, Mr.R.Singaravel, has filed the above appeal praying for enhanced compensation.
3.The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 25.08.1999, at about 5.30 a.m., when the petitioner was walking on the road from the Police Station to Vazhappadi Bus Stand, on the extreme left of the road, the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN60 6175, came from Attur in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. In the result, the petitioner sustained injuries on his left leg, right knee, left side of hip and nose besides other injuries all over his body. He was admitted in the Salem Government Hospital for treatment. During the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 28 years. He was employed as an agricultural coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. After the accident, he is not able to work as before.
4.The Vazhappadi Police has registered a criminal case as Crime No.1124/99, against the driver of the said Tata Sumo under
Sections 279 and
338 of I.P.C. The first respondent, the owner of the Tata Sumo and the second respondent, the Insurer of the Tata Sumo are both jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and costs from the respondents.
5.The first respondent remained absent in spite of summons and so he was set exparte.
6.The second respondent, the New India Assurance Company Ltd., in its Counter has resisted the claim stating that the said Tata Sumo Vehicle had not been insured with it at the time of the accident. Further, the age, occupation and income of the petitioner was not admitted. It has also been averred that the petitioner was aged about 40 years and that he had no permanent job or income at the time of the accident. Further, the nature of injuries, disability sustained by the petitioner and loss of income has to be proved by the petitioner through documentary evidence. The manner of the accident as alleged in the claim was also not admitted. It has been stated that the accident was caused only due to the fact that the petitioner had suddenly tried to cross the road and so it was due to negligence of the petitioner that the accident had occurred. Further, the claim made by the petitioner is excessive and without any basis. As such, the second respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely:
(i) Who was responsible for the accident?
(ii) Is the petitioner entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation he is entitled to?
8.On the petitioner's side, a witness was examined and two documents were marked as Exs.P1 and P2. On the respondents side no witness was examined and no documents were marked. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal heard the arguments advanced on either sides and scrutinised the documents.
9.The petitioner, was examined as PW1. In his evidence he adduced that on 25.08.1999, at about 5.30 a.m. in the morning, when he was walking from Vazhappadi Bus Stand towards Vazhappadi Police Station on the extreme left of the road, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN60 6175, driven by its driver with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and had dashed against him. As a result, the petitioner sustained fracture in his left leg, and injuries on his hip, right leg, nose and that he was treated as an in-patient at Salem Government Hospital from 28.08.1999 to 09.09.1999. In support of his claim, the PW1 has marked Ex.P1-FIR and Ex.P2-Medical Treatment Records.
10.On a scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the FIR has been registered, based on the complaint given by PW1. In the complaint, it has been stated that on 25.08.1999, at about 5.30 a.m. when the petitioner was coming back from Attayambadi, after attending a marriage, and when he was walking towards Vazhappadi Bus Stop and nearing Vazhappadi Police Station, the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN60 6175, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed, had dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which he was thrown out on the road and had sustained fracture on his left leg and right leg palm and that after taking treatment, he had given the complaint to the Police on 01.09.1999. The Medical treatment records were marked as Ex.P2 and in this, the copy of the Accident Register Sheet marked as 7/99 was enclosed. It has been mentioned in the medical report that the petitioner has been treated from 28.08.1999 to 09.09.1999 as in-patient. It has further been mentioned in the report that there were injuries on his right leg palm and fracture of his left leg and that his left leg had looked inflamed.
11.Though the second respondent has stated that the accident had not happened due to the rash driving by the driver of the first respondent and that it has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, no oral or documentary evidence has been produced to prove the same before the Tribunal. Further, no complaint has been lodged by the first respondent with the Police against the complaint registered in the FIR and no witness has been examined on the respondents side to contradict the version of the accident as alleged in the FIR and so the Tribunal ignored the arguments advanced on the respondent's side. Based on evidence of the PW1 and scrutiny of Exs.P1 and P2, the Tribunal held that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the driver of the first respondent.
12.It has been argued on the second respondent's side that though the petitioner has stated that he was aged about 28 years and earning income of Rs.2,500/- per month as an agricultural coolie, no documentary evidence has been furnished in support of his claim and as such the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- claimed by the petitioner is on the higher side. Further, it has been contended that as the petitioner has not produced any medical bills in support of his claim, only minimum compensation should be granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on considering the fact that the petitioner has not examined any Doctor, to prove that the injuries sustained in his leg are grievous in nature and that no Doctor Certificate has been marked in support of this and that even in the Ex.P2, it has only been stated that these are X'rays taken on the petitioner's legs and as it has not been stated that the third left tibia bone has been fractured in the left leg, held that the petitioner is only entitled to receive a lumpsum compensation of Rs.10,000/-. This award of Rs.10,000/- was granted by the Tribunal, after, considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment of the petitioner from 28.08.1999 to 09.09.1999, his loss of income during this period, the pain and suffering undergone by the petitioner and after consideration of the petitioner's age and income. The Tribunal, then directed the second respondent to deposit the award of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.670 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Salem, within a period of two months, from the date of its Order. The petitioner was permitted to receive the said deposit, after it was made, immediately. The petitioner was directed to pay the Court fee on the award, within a period of two weeks from the date of its Order. The Advocate Fees was fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
13.The learned counsel for the appellant in his appeal has contended that the Tribunal had erred in awarding a paltry sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, when the nature of injury suffered by the appellant is grievous in nature. It has also been contended that the Tribunal had erred in not awarding any amount towards loss of income during the period of hospitalisation. It has also been contended that the fracture sustained by the appellant in his left leg has not been considered by the Tribunal. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that no amount has been granted by the Tribunal towards nutrition and transportation expenses. As such, it has been prayed, by the learned counsel for the appellant, to reconsider the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.
14.The learned counsel, Mr.J.Chandran, for the second respondent vehemently argued that no Doctor's evidence has been given and no Disability Certificate have been produced. For injury cases, the Doctor is the competent authority to give medical opinion, regarding nature of injuries and medical treatment after inspection of physical condition of the injured person. In this case, there is total absence of medical evidence. There is Lacuna in the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. So, the award passed by the Tribunal is not a well-considered one. As such, the appeal is not maintainable.
15.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.K.Kuppusamy and the learned counsel for second respondent, Mr.J.Chandran, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute regarding the occupation of the claimant namely that he was an agricultural coolie. As per Ex.P1-FIR, it is an admitted fact that the claimant was injured in the accident. As per Ex.P2-Medical Treatment Records, it is seen that the appellant sustained injuries and so he had been admitted in the Hospital from 28.08.1999 to 09.09.1999, as an in-patient ie. for a period of about 11 days. The claimant had narrated in his evidence that his left leg, right knee, left hip and nose were injured in the accident and so it is an admitted fact that he has been injured in the accident. But, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as one lumpsum payment citing lack of Doctor evidence. Even though, the Doctor's evidence is not available, the Court is of the view, that once a claimant proves an accident and that he had sustained injuries, he can be awarded compensation under proper heads. Accordingly, this Court awards Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.2,000/- for transportation and Rs.3,000/- for nutrition. In total, this Court grants an award of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant as compensation, as considering the medical records, the above award is fair and reasonable.
16.The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. Now, this Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and the rate of interest is 7.5% per annum. As such, this Court directs the respondent/New India Assurance Co., Ltd., to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment, within a period of four weeks from the date of his Order, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.670 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Salem, subject to deduction of earlier amounts made to the claimant.
17.It is open to the appellant/claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest and cost, lying the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.670 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Salem, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law.
18.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.670 of 2000, is modified. No costs.
krk To
1. Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Salem.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras