The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 31.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Erode.
2. The first respondent/ claimant appeared through counsel. At the request of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
On 16.11.2006, the injured claimant Vellaiyan, a Kalasi (i.e.) load man, was riding a by-cycle at about 6.30 p.m. on the Karur to Coimbatore main road. He was hit by the transport Corporation bus. In that accident, he suffered grievous and simple injuries. He was initially treated at Dr. Sathiyamoorthy Clinic and given first aid and thereafter, he was taken to Government Hospital, Kangayam for further treatment. He was then taken to LKM Hospital, Erode. In that accident, he suffered grievous injuries on his head, fracture of the right shoulder, injuries to hip region and fracture of fore finger besides, he suffered other injuries all over the body. He claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- stating that his income was Rs.200/- per day i.e. Rs.6,000/- p.m.
4. In support of the claim, the claimant was examined as P.W.1. One Vadivel was examined as P.W.2. Dr. Periasamy was examined as P.W.3. On behalf of the claimant Exs. A1 to A17 were marked. The relevant documents are Ex.A5 to A17. On behalf of the appellant/ 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/ 2nd respondent before the Tribunal.
5. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the transport Corporation bus and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and such finding is confirmed.
6. The main contention in appeal is on the quantum of compensation. As far as the injury and disability is concerned, the Tribunal, based on various medical records which clearly reveal that the injury is to the right shoulder, fore finger and all other parts of the body including hip, held that the earning capacity of the injured claimant a Kalasi has been affected. The Doctor, who examined the claimant based on the medical records opined that the movement of the right hand consequent to the fracture of the shoulder is very much affected and because of that, the claimant is unable to lift heavy object. In paragraph 12 of the award, the restrictions in movement of the injured claimant has been discussed by the Tribunal. This is based on the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.3. The fact that the injured claimant was working as a Kalasi near the bus stand and living by daily income by manual labour which is supported by the evidence of P.W.2., who is the president of the Union of workers engaged in carrying heavy goods on their back. He stated that the claimant was earning Rs.2,00/- per day i.e. Rs.6,000/- p.m. The identity card of the claimant as a member of the association was also marked. The fact that the injured claimant was working as a Kalasi lifting heavy weight is not doubted by the Tribunal. On the other hand stating that there was no concrete material to come to the conclusion as to the actual income of the claimant per day, the Tribunal fixed the same as Rs.3,000/- p.m. Since the disability has been assessed at 22% under Ex.A15, the Tribunal, considering the restrictions in the movement of the shoulder and other parts of the body consequent to the injury and also taking note of the nature of occupation of the injured claimant, felt that due to the disability, there will be reduction in the earning capacity. Considering the nature of employment, age and occupation of the injured claimant, the Tribunal adopted 11 multiplier and granted a sum of Rs.87,120/- towards loss of pecuniary benefits due to the disability. The tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income due to disability Rs. 87,120/-
Medical expenses Rs. 4,500/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/-
Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
7. In appeal, it is contended that the Tribunal is not justified in adopting 11 multiplier to the 55 years old injured claimant and therefore, the award has to be reduced.
8. The following decisions will have to be kept in mind while fixing the income of the deceased:-
(a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi vs. - Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233(P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995.
(b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. - Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999.
9. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2006. Therefore, the income of the injured claimant should have been fixed atleast Rs.4,000/- or Rs.4,500/-. He was working as a Kalasi (load man) in Vellaiankoil bus stand. It is an important business town. Since the income has been drastically reduced while determining the compensation, the marginally higher multiplier will justify the total compensation. In this case, the Tribunal granted a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- alone towards pain and suffering to the claimant, who has taken treatment in three hospitals and was out of employment for a quite period of time. No amount has been granted for loss of income during the period of treatment and for attender charges. The amount of Rs.1,000/- granted for transport expenses is also very meager. Hence, taking into account all these factors, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justified and no good ground has been made out for reduction in the quantum of compensation as also the interest at the rate of 7.5% as the accident in the year 2006 and the award was passed in 2007.
10. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same, as per the order of the Tribunal.
02.2.2009 ra Index: /No Internet: Yes R. SUDHAKAR,J., To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Erode.
CMA No. 166 of 2009 Date: 02.2.2009