THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA C.M.A.No.1504 of 2016 T.M.Elangovan ... Appellant ..vs..
1. A.K.Mani
2. M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.177, IV Floor, Raheja Tower, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 ... Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 04.01.2016, made in M.C.O.P.No.964 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr. T.G.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr. M.B.Raghavan, for R-2, Exparte R-1.
---
JUDGMENT
The claimant, who is an Office Assistant, aged 51 years, earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month, met with an accident on 20.08.2013 and in respect of the injuries sustained, he filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-, as compensation.
2. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,24,101.49 as compensation under the following break up details:-
Rs.1,24,101.49
3. While awarding compensation for the injuries sustained, the Tribunal has relied upon Ex.P-7, discharge summary, where it shows that he had been admitted in BRS Hopsital on 24.08.2013 and discharged on 28.08.2013. Prior to that, he had been admitted in Government Hospital, Chennai, on the date of the accident and immediately, he has been shifted to BRS Hospital, on the very same day.
3.1. According to the medical records available, the petitioner / claimant has sustained head injury (brain contusion). The Doctor has assessed the disability at 50% and he has spoken about the post-traumatic head ache, giddiness, tremours left hand and leg, memory deficit, difficulty to walk normally at 30% and remaining problem has been assessed at 20%.
4. The Tribunal did not accept the disability at 50% and it has taken the disability only at 15%, but no reason has been adduced as to how the percentage of disability was high and how it could be reduced to 15%. Comparing the disability, with reference to head injury, there is a finding in the report of the Doctor that there was no bone injury in the Head. However, there is a finding by the Doctor that there was a hemorrhage in the right temporal lobe. The Doctor has considered fibrosis in the right shoulder joint and restriction in movement; considering the difficulty in carrying weight in the right hand, the disability is assessed at 20%. Considering the overall circumstances, the disability could be taken as 30% and not 50% as there was no bone injury.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would state that the attendant charges should have been awarded at least at Rs.10,000/-, transport at Rs.10,000/- and pain and sufferings at Rs.50,000/-, having regard to the nature of injury, period of treatment and consequent disablement suffered.
5.1. This contention is acceptable and the award under these heads are granted as prayed for.
6. The appellant is stated to be an Office Assistant, but no document has been filed to show that he was not on job for six months. But having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, he would not have been in the job, at least for a period of three months, therefore, the loss of income at the rate of Rs.7,000/- for a period of three months, is granted, as contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent.
7. Calculating the compensation for the disability at Rs.3,000/- per percentage and in respect of 30% disability, the amount to be awarded is Rs.90,000/-. On these heads the award stands modified.
7.1. Since the amount awarded under medical expenses are based on medical bills produced, the amount awarded under that head is confirmed.
8. In the result, the total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,24,101.49 to Rs.2,08,701.49 and the breakup details are as under:-
Rs.2,08,701.49
9. In the result, the total award of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,24,102/- to Rs.2,08,701/-. The entire award amount shall be deposited, less the amount already deposited, along with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimant / appellant herein is entitled to withdraw the same. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
25.01.2017 Index : Yes / No Web : Yes / No srk To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai 104
S.VIMALA, J.,
srk C.M.A.No.1504 of 2016 25.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in