Full Judgment
2. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, had filed a counter statement and refuted the averments in the claim. The respondent stated that the driver of the bus had driven the bus in a cautious manner and that the accident was caused only due to the high speed and the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, who had dashed against the bus. The respondent further submitted that the motorcycle, was ridden in the middle of the road and if hit against the bumper of the bus. The claim amount is an excessive one. The respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the claimant.
3. The 1st respondent had filed a counter statement and denied that the accident had been committed by him. It was stated that the rider of the motorcycle came at a high speed and dashed his motorcycle against the bumper of the bus and this caused the accident due to his negligence.
4. On verifying the averments of all parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1)Was the accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of the bus bearing registration not TN-45N-1217?; (2)Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation from the respondent?. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and twelve documents were marked namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-wound certificate; Exs.P3 and P4-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex.P5-charge sheet; Ex.P6- driving licence; Ex.P7-medical bills; Ex.P8-discharge summary; Ex.P9-X ray, Ex.P10-salary certificate; Ex.P11-permanent disability certificate; Ex.P12-X ray.
5. PW.1, had adduced evidence that on 01.01.2002, at about 08.30 p.m., when he and one Murugesan, were travelling on the motorcycle bearing registration not TN-39B-7335, on the Karur to Trichy Road and at that point of time, the Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration not TN-45N-1217, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcyclist. PW.1, further stated that he was travelling in the said motorcycle as pillion rider and that in the criminal case has been registered against the driver of the bus. He further stated that he was working as a mason at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.140/- per day. He stated that he had undergone treatment at a Private Hospital from 02.01.2002 to 04.02.2002 and that he had spent a sum of Rs.1,06,199/- towards medical expenses. During medical treatment period, a surgical operation was conducted on his right hand and his right leg had been amputated. He further stated that he had also sustained bone fracture injuries on his right thigh and that steel plates and screws were fixed in the operated area.
6. The Doctor, had adduced evidence stating that the claimant's right leg had been amputated just above the knee level and a surgical operation was conducted on his right hand and steel plate with screws were fixed on the operated area. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 80%.
7. PW.3, had adduced evidence that the claimant was working with Puliyoor South India Corporation, as Contract Labour. RW.1, had adduced evidence that the rider of the motorcycle had ridden the motorcycle after consuming alcocol.
8. After considering the evidence of both the sides and on perusing the exhibits marked by the claimants, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.7,31,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Against the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel contended that the Doctor had assessed the disability at 80% which is on the higher side. Further, in the said accident, two vehicles were involved and therefore contributory negligence has to be attributed. The learned counsel further submits that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the motorcyclist. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of permanent disability which is erroneous. Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering which is also not appropriate. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to scale down the compensation.
9. The highly competent counsel for the claimant contended that the claimant is aged about 29 years at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.140/- per day. The same was continued through evidence of PW.3. The Tribunal, had adopted multiplier method 4 awarded the said compensation and also followed case laws reported in 1994, ACJ-page 702(Bhagwan Dass Vs.State of Himachal Pradesh and others). The learned counsel further submits that the claimant had been hospitalized for a period of 45 days and that during medical treatment period, two surgical operation was conducted and steel plates with screws were fixed on the operated area. The Tribunal had not granted compensation under the head of attender charges, loss of amenities due to disfigurement.
10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any short comings in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence and liability. However, the quantum of compensation is slightly on the higher side. Therefore, this court restructures the compensation as follows: The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- after adopting multiplier method by fixing the income of the claimant as Rs.2,250/- per month, which is reasonable and as such this Court accepts the same. Rs.1,06,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is appropriate and it is also confirmed. This Court awards Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/- towards transport; Rs.15,000/- towards attender charges; Rs.15,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment period; Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities, loss of comfort due to disfigurement. In total, this Court awards Rs.7,61,000/- as compensation, it is found to be appropriate. The rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at 9% per annum remains unaltered. As per Court records, it is seen that this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon. Further, this Court permitted the claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount with interest.
11. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw balance compensation amount, as per this Courts findings lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.365 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. Likewise, the appellant herein is permitted to withdraw the excess compensation amount from the Trial Court after filing a memo.
12. In the result, the above appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.365 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, dated 07.01.2005, is modified. No costs. ub To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.