The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 13.9.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.569 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Dharapuram.
2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 28.2.1994. The injured claimant D.Senkathir Selvan, aged 23 years, was travelling in a taxi, which was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident the said Senkathir Selvan suffered grievous injuries to the face, consequently, he suffered serious eye injury which lead to loss of vision of the left eye. He was treated at the Government Hospital, Kangeyam, thereafter, at Government Headquarters Hospital, Erode, then at L.K.M. Hospital, Erode and finally for the serious eye problem, he was treated at Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai. He was working as the Manager attached to M/s.Balaji Borewell and was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of accident. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.12,30,500/- for the injury suffered in the accident.
3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. One Selvakumar, a co-passenger, in that taxi, was examined as P.W.2. Dr.Viswanathan, was examined as P.W.3. P.W.4 is the employer of the injured claimant. Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR, dated 28.2.1994, Ex.A-2 is the copy of observation mahazar, dated 28.2.1994, Ex.A-3 is the copy of rough sketch, dated 28.2.1994, Ex.A-4 is the copy of accident register dated 28.2.1994, Ex.A-5 is the copy of charge sheet, Ex.A-6 series are the medical bills, Ex.A-7 series are the medical receipts, Ex.A-8 series are the medical bills, Ex.A-9 is the treatment details given at Madurai Eye Hospital, Ex.A-10 is the treatment details given at Erode L.K.M. Hospital, Ex.A-11 is the discharge summary given at Erode Headquarters Hospital, Ex.A-12 is the medical certificate given by Darapuram Government Hospital, Ex.A-13 is the authorisation letter dated 30.7.2006 issued by the Belcam Sri Balaji Borewell Service and Ex.A-14 is the salary certificate dated 25.12.1994.
On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the second respondent before the Tribunal, one Balu, an Engineer of the appellant transport corporation was examined as R.W.1. Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.B-1 is the copy of order dated 9.4.1999 in M.C.O.P.No.674 of 1997 passed by the Additional Sub Court, Erode, and Ex.B-2 is the copy of judgment dated 6.11.1998 in C.C.No.499 of 1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam.
4. The Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the driver of the appellant transport corporation was rash and negligent in driving the bus and was responsible for the accident, in which the claimant suffered grievous injury and consequently, liability to compensate the injured claimant was fixed on the appellant transport corporation. Such finding of the Tribunal is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal based on the oral evidence of the claimant and that of the doctor supported by medical records issued by the various hospitals in which, the claimant had taken treatment, granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:-
Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income during the period of treatment for two months (Rs.6,000/- x 2 = Rs.12,000/-) Rs. 12,000/-
6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that on going through the list of exhibits filed, there is no specific document to show the disability of 40% assessed by the doctor. But the Tribunal fixed the disability at 40% as per Ex.A-12 without any discussion. She also stated that the injuries are not so serious enough to grant compensation both for disability and for loss of earning power. Therefore, the quantum of of compensation has to be reduced.
7. On going through the award of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation on the above said contention for the following reasons:-
(i) The accident in this case happened on 28.2.1994. The injured claimant was 23 years old at the time of accident.
(ii) From the records, it is clear that the injured claimant was treated at the Government Hospital, Kangeyam, thereafter, at Government Headquarters Hospital, Erode, then at L.K.M. Hospital, Erode and finally for the serious eye problem, he was treated at Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai.
(iii) The injury to the eye is very serious in nature. The disability has been referred to under Ex.A-12 and that is recorded by the Tribunal in para 7 of the award. Doctor, P.W.3 has deposed about the nature of the injury. Therefore, the contention of the appellant's counsel that there is no discussion by the Tribunal to fix the disability cannot be accepted.
(iv) In so far as the sum of Rs.30,000/- granted towards loss of earning capacity is concerned, though there is no specific discussion as to how this amount can be granted to the claimant, this court is not inclined to set aside that amount as the claimant in this case has been granted a meagre amount towards transport and extra nourishment, even though he has taken treatment at four different hospitals.
(v) Considering his young age and the nature of injury, after treatment, claimant requires extra nourishment. No amount has been granted towards attender charges during the period of treatment. The loss of income during treatment, according to the Tribunal is stated to be two months. In fact, it should be little more as the injury is of such a nature. No amount has been granted towards loss of amenities, since one eye has been seriously affected. Therefore, any amount in excess on one or other head, can be adjusted on the other heads which are omitted or less as stated above.
(vi) Hence, the total compensation granted by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the award was passed in this case in the year 2006.
8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.1.2009 Index : No Internet : Yes ts To The Subordinate Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Dharapuram. R.SUDHAKAR,J. ts Judgment in C.M.A.No.78 of 2009 22.1.2009