The State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 12.12.2007 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No. 172 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Chidambaram.
2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 28.2.2006. The injured claimant Santhosh kumar, aged 30 years, a flower merchant was walking on the road. When the appellant transport corporation bus driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, hit the claimant and caused serious injuries resulting in fracture of the right fore arm. He was treated at RMMCH, Annamalai Nagar and before that he was given first aid at Senthilnathan's Clinic. He was treated at RMMCH Annamalai Nagar for 20 days as inpatient. Surgery was performed to reduce the fracture and shoulder joint was refixed. He claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation stating that his income per month was Rs.10,000/- as a flower merchant.
3. In support of his claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1, one Venkatesan was examined as P.W.2 and the Doctor, who assessed the disability was examined as P.W.3. Ex.A1 to A13 were marked, which are as follows:-
Ex.A1 First Information Report Ex.A2 Photocopy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report Ex.A3 Photocopy of the Wound Certificate Ex.A4 Medical receipts Ex.A5 Medical receipts Ex.A6 Discharge summary Ex.A7 ECG Report Ex.A8 Medical prescriptions Ex.A9 X-ray Ex.A10- Wound certificate given by Dr.Senthilnathan Ex.A11- Photocopy of the wound certificate Ex.A12 Certificate given by Raja Muthaiya Medical college Ex.A13 Medical receipt for Rs.100/-
No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the Transport Corporation before the Tribunal.
4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus and the liability of the appellant to compensate the claimant is not in dispute in the appeal. The only contention raised is as regards the quantum of compensation.
5. The issue relating to quantum of compensation was discussed by the Tribunal from paragraph 13 onwards. The Doctor, P.W.3, who treated the injured claimant stated that there was grievous injury resulting in fracture of the fore arm. Surgery was done to fix a plate in the fore arm. He also stated that the injured claimant was in hospital for a considerable period of time and he was also treated as outpatient. Due to the accident and injuries, there was wastage of muscles in shoulder and in the fore arm resulting in loss of strength. There was difficulty in gripping in his right hand. He also opined that there was loss in sensation. He assessed the disability at 30%. The Tribunal based on the age, occupation and the injuries suffered by the claimant and the period of hospitalisation, awarded compensation under the following heads:-
Sl.No.
6. Finally the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of a sum of Rs.77,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.
7. The only contention raised in the appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is excessive since, the claimant produced medical bills only to the extent of little more than Rs.5000/-. Therefore, the quantum of compensation on this aspect has to be reduced.
8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reason.
(i). The accident in this case happened on 28.2.2006. The injured was 30 years old and a flower merchant.
(ii) He suffered fracture on the right hand and the disability has been assessed at 30% by the Doctor who treated him in the hospital. It is stated that after the treatment in the hospital, he took further treatment by way of physiotheraphy. In this case, no amount has been awarded under the head of 'attender charges' and considering the period of treatment, for loss of income the Tribunal should have been granted the compensation much more.
(iii) Considering these aspects, even if the sum of Rs.30,000/- granted for medical expenses is marginally higher, the excess amount, if any, can be adjusted under the heads of attender charges, loss of income and pain and suffering etc. Therefore, this Court finds no good reason why the quantum should be reduced any further.
(iv) There is no dispute with regard to the interest.
9. Finding no merit, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and the same is granted. On such payment, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount.
bg To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Chidambaram