The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 12.2.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.834 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri.
2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 17.7.2005. The injured claimant, aged 7 years, studying 2nd standard along with her father, mother and sister travelled in a bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. The said bus hit a parked lorry belonging to the second respondent. In that accident, the claimant and other passengers suffered injuries. The claimant in this case suffered fracture to the left femur's neck portion. She was treated at Bangalore hospital and thereafter in Government Hospital at Hosur and then she was treated in private hospital. She filed a claim through her father for compensation in a sum of Rs.6 lakhs.
3. The claim was adjudicated along with another claim filed by the father of the minor claimant. In support of the claim, the father of the injured claimant was examined as P.W.2. For the claim filed by the father, he was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Gandhi, was examined as P.W.3. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the FIR dated 11.9.2007, Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate of Gangappa, dated 11.9.2007, Ex.A-3 is the insurance policy, Ex.A-4 is the driving licence of Dagalan, Ex.A-5 is the driving licence of Pandiyan, Ex.A-6 is the wound certificate of the minor claimant, Ex.A-7 is the disability certificate of Gangappa, Ex.A-8 is the X-Ray, Ex.A-9 is the disability certificate of the minor claimant and Ex.A-10 is the X-Ray No oral or documental evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the first respondent before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus and was responsible for the accident, in which the claimant suffered 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 and the same is confirmed.
5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence granted the following compensation with interest 7.5% per annum:- Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income for the disability assessed at 25% Rs.56,250/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 1,000/-
Attender charges Rs. 1,000/-
Extra nutritious food Rs. 1,000/-
Total Rs.64,250/-
6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that a sum of Rs.56,250/- granted towards loss of income for the disability assessed at 25% by adopting multiplier method is not justified. For minor aged 7 years, the loss of income during the period of treatment granted at Rs.1,000/- is not justified. Therefore, the same has to be reduced.
7. 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 17.7.2005. The doctor assessed the disability at 40%. The Tribunal, without any reason, reduced the disability to 25%.
(ii) The minor injured claimant was treated first at Bangalore hospital, thereafter at Government Hospital, Hosur and then in private hospital. But no amount was granted towards transport expenses. The sum of Rs.1,000/- granted towards loss of income during the period of treatment can be adjusted towards transport expenses.
(iii) The compensation granted under the other heads are very very meagre. Even though the multiplier method adopted in this case is not justified, the excess amount granted towards loss of income can be adjusted towards the lesser amounts granted under the other heads as above and no amount granted under the medical expenses.
(iv) Considering the above aspects, the total compensation in a sum of Rs.64,250/- is justified as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and the award was passed in this case in the year 2008.
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 the same is granted. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.