The transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 14.2.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 4127 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 17.5.2003. The injured claimant Jeyavel, is a Manager in a private management school at Erode. The injured claimant was travelling in the appellant trnsport corporation bus which hit a stationary lorry and in that accident, he suffered the following injuries.
(i) Left orgito frontal depressed fracture with dual pneumo cephelus, left zygoma fracture, eye injury and dental injury.
He was treated at General Hospital at Arokkonam and Government General Hospital, at Chennai from 17.5.2003 to 21.5.2003. He claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation stating that his income was Rs.6,000/- p.m. at the time of the accident.
3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1 and three doctors were examined as P.Ws. 2 to 4 with regard to the injuries and the disability. Doctuments Exs. A1 to A23 were marked. The relevant documents are Ex.A5 the discharge summary which states about the nature of injury and the treatment given. Ex.A8 dental hospital records and Exs.A19, A22 and A23 are the disability certificate. The disability has been assessed at 45% under Ex.19 which relates to the head injury, the disability has been assessed at 15% under Ex.A22 for the fracture of left zygomalic complex and under Ex.A23 another disability certificate is with regard to the dental injury assessing the disability to the eye region at 20%. In all, the total disability has been assessed at 80%. The Tribunal, however, reduced the disability at 65%. The income of the injured claimant was fixed as Rs.6,000/- p.m. based on Exs.P13, 14 and 15. No oral and documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal.
4. Considering the nature of injury, age, occupation and the disability assessed, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation:-
Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Permanent disability at 65% Rs.65,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-
5. In appeal, the only contention raised by the leaned counsel for the appellant is that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive. In particular, the learned counsel stated that the loss of income granted for the period of three months in a sum of Rs.18,000/- is excessive and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced.
6. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:-
(i) The accident, in this case happened in the year 2003. (ii) The injured claimant suffered grievous injuries and was treated in two hospitals and the disability has been assessed by three independent Doctors and the total disability has been assessed at 80%, however reduced by the Tribunal to 65%. The claimant is entitled to reasonable compensation for the disability.
(iii) As far as the income is concerned, the Tribunal placed reliance on Exs.P13 to P15 which speak about the educational qualification and the salary received by the claimant. The Tribunal reduced the salary to Rs.6,000/- as against Rs.8,000/- claimed as per record. According to the appellant, no further material is placed to support the income except the salary certificates. Accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation granted towards loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence is excessive and that can be adjusted towards compensation for attender charges, which is omitted and towards the meager amount granted for transport expenses to go to hospitals and extra nourishment to the injured claimant.
(iv) Therefore, the total compensation granted by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.1,06,410/- does not require reduction.
(v) There is no dispute with regard to the interest.
7. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is closed. No costs.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount as per the order of the Tribunal.
08.4.2008 ra Index: No Internet: Yes To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
R. SUDHAKAR,J., CMA No. 839 of 2009 Date: 08.4.2009