1.The Superintendent of Police Vs. 1.Minor Indumathi - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1168881
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnJan-30-2014
JudgeN.KIRUBAKARAN
Appellant1.The Superintendent of Police
Respondent1.Minor Indumathi
Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated:30. 01.2014 coram the hon'ble mr.justice n.kirubakaran c.m.a(md)no.1401 of 2008 c.m.a(md)no.1402 to 1403 of 2008 and m.p(md)nos.2, 2 and 2 of 2008 1.the superintendent of police thoothukudi district, thoothukudi. 2.the state of tamil nadu, rep. by the district collector, thoothukudi district. 3.the director general of police (law and order) chennai. .. appellants in all cmas vs 1.minor indumathi rep. by the natural guardian and her mother maharasi 2.united india insurance company ltd., tirunelveli, rep. by its branch manager ..respondents in c.m.a.no.1401 of 2008 1.maharasi 2.minor indumathi 3.minor dinesh rep. by the natural guardian and her mother maharasi. 4.v.thirunavukarasu pillai 5.sankari 6.united india insurance company ltd., tirunelveli, rep. by its branch manager ..respondents in c.m.a.no.1402 of 2008 1.maharasi 2.united india insurance company ltd., tirunelveli, rep. by its branch manager ..respondents in c.m.a.no.1403 of 2008 civil miscellaneous appeals filed under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2006 in mcop nos.160, 161 and 163 of 2003 respectively on the file of motor accident claims tribunal-cum-fast track court no.ii, tirunelveli. !for appellants ... mr.d.muruganandham sgp ^for claimants ... mr.d.saravanan for insurance- company ... mr.v.r.subramaniam :common judgment these civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed by the police officials against the common award dated 12.06.2006 by which 75% of the liability was fixed on the appellants' jeep and 25% of the liability was fixed on the maruthi omni-van. these appeals are also filed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party as the owner of the maruthi van was not impleaded.2. the accident occurred on 21.08.2002 when the appellants' jeep and the omni-van dashed against each other, resulting in, death of four persons and causing injury of ten persons. the claim petitions were filed and the same were contested and the impugned awards have been passed.3. mr.d.muruganantham, learned special government pleader appearing for the appellants would contend that the accident occurred in the centre of the road and both the vehicle dashed against each other and therefore, fixing of liability to an extent of 75% on the appellants' vehicle is wrong. he would also point out that the first information report was registered against only the omni-van driver. therefore, if at all any negligence, it should be equal and seeks for reduction of liability from 75% to 50%.4. on the other hand, mr.v.r.subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that the tribunal rightly found that the accident occurred on the extreme left side of the road i.e., eastern side. when the omni-van was traveling from north to south, the police jeep, which was coming from south to north, came in the extreme right side and crossed the centre point and dashed against the omni van, resulting in loss of so many lives. though the tribunal came to the conclusion based on the aforesaid manner, still it fixed 25% liability on the omni-van stating that the accident could have been averted if the driver of the omni-van applied break. the said finding is not sustainable. therefore, he seeks exoneration from 25% liability also. moreover, he would point out 25% liability cannot be fixed on the third respondent as the owner of the omni-van was not made as a party as the insured, namely, the owner of the omni van himself died in the accident.5. mr.d.saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would support the argument of mr.v.r.subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company and seeks for fixing of the entire liability on the police jeep.6. heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records carefully.7. the accident took away four precious lives and caused injuries to 10 persons. the accident occurred on 21.08.2002 when the omni-van was coming from north to south and the police jeep was coming from south to north. as rightly observed by the tribunal that if the omni-van was coming from north to south, it should have come only on the left side, namely, eastern side. similarly, jeep should keep itself on the western side when it was coming from south to north. however, after perusing ex.p.4 photograph taken in the accident spot, the tribunal factually came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on the eastern margin of the road, on which side, the omni-van was rightly driven. the tribunal found that the accident should have occurred when the jeep was trying to overtake a vehicle going in front of it and in that process it went into right side, that is towards eastern side and dashed against the omni-van, which was coming in the right direction. such a finding was given by the tribunal based on evidence and also the probability. therefore, the said finding cannot be disturbed. in view of that, the contention made by the appellants is rejected. therefore, it is clear that the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the jeep.8. having given such a finding that jeep alone was responsible for the accident, the tribunal wrongly concluded that the accident could have been averted by the driver of omni-van by applying break after seeing the jeep, as the road is straight road. it is only a perception of the tribunal without any evidence. when the tribunal already came to a categorical conclusion that the accident occurred because of the driver of the jeep alone (appellants' vehicle alone), the further finding is unwarranted and unnecessary and that apart, the finding is contrary to the factual position. hence, the same is set aside.9. in view of the above, the 25% liability fixed on the maruthi omni-van is set aside and this court by re-appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case holds that the entire negligence is on the part of the jeep driver and therefore, the appellants alone are liable to pay the entire award amount. even though there is no appeal by either insurance company or by the claimants, this court by re-appreciating the evidence gives the above finding as the appeals are continuation of the original proceedings. that apart, the motor vehicles act is a beneficial legislation intended to console, comfort and compensate the road accident victims. when factually wrong finding has been given, this court cannot keep quite merely on the technicality that there is no appeal by the claimants or by the insurance company. complete justice should be done and therefore, in an attempt to do complete justice, this court finds that the entire negligence is on the part of the jeep driver and 100% liability is fixed on the jeep driver. consequently, the appellants are liable to pay the entire amount awarded by the tribunal.10. the next point which was canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the owner of the omni-van was not impleaded as a party. therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. though it appears to be a valid point, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said point is not sustainable as the owner of the van alone was driving the van and he himself lost his life in the accident. the legal-heirs of the van owner are the claimants. in that event, the legal-heirs, namely, owner of the vehicle have to be made as a party, which is not possible as the same party cannot be claimants as well as opposite party. moreover, as found by this court that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the omni-van and it was only the appellants jeep, which was solely responsible for the accident.11. the individual appeals are arising out of the same accident regarding quantum are dealt with in the following manner:- c.m.a.(md)no.1402 of 2006 12. the legal-heir of velayutham, who died in the accident filed mcop no.163 of 2002. the tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased velayutham, husband of the first respondent, who was driving the omni-van, at rs.5,000/- even though there was a claim for rs.15,000/- stating that he was running photo and vedio shops. based on his age 44, multiplier '15' was adopted and loss of income after deduction of 1/3 was determined as rs.6,00,000/- (5000 x 12 x 15 x 2/3 = 6,00,000) towards loss of income, rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent, rs.15,000/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 towards the loss of love and affection, rs.10,000/- each to the parents of the deceased velayutham towards loss of love and affection, rs.10,000/- towards the loss of estate of the deceased, rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, rs.2000/- towards transportation, were awarded. in total, rs.6,90,000/- was awarded.13. mr.d.muruganantham, learned special government pleader appearing for the appellants would contend that the multiplier should be according to the age of the dependent, namely, the age of the parents of the deceased and in that regard, he relied upon the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in ramesh singh and another vs. sabi singh and another reported in 2008 air scw1238 wherein, the age of the deceased or of claimants whichever higher has to be taken into account.14. though the said contention appears to be having force, the recent judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in mansoor and another vs. united india insurance company limited reported 2013(2) tan mac481declared that the selection of multiplier must be based on the age of the deceased and no on the basis of the age of the claimants. in view of the recent judgement of the hon'ble supreme court, multiplier 15' adopted by the tribunal taking into consideration of the age of the deceased at 44 as per the post-morterm report ex.p.6 cannot be found fault with and the same is confirmed. the other amounts awarded by the tribunal towards the other heads and also determination of monthly income are all reasonable and therefore, the same cannot be interfered with and the award is confirmed. however, rs.5,17,500/- towards 75% is set aside and the appellants are directed to pay the entire amount rs.6,90,000/-. since no rate of interest has been given, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2003, this court awards 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of payment of compensation to the claimants.15. so far no amount has been deposited by the appellants. therefore, the appellants are directed to pay the entire amount along with interest and cost on or before 26.02.2014 or on 27.02.2014 d.d. should be produced before this court, failing which on 27.02.2014, the appellant/superintendent of police shall appear before this court. the above order is required to be passed considering the fate of the claimants. the claimants lost the head of the family in the accident, which occurred about more than a decade i.e., 21.08.2002. not only, they lost the head of the family, but also, everybody in the family got injured in the accident. the award was passed in the year 2006. so far they have not been seen the color of the coin. in view of such a pitiable condition of the claimants alone, this court is inclined to pass the above order. c.m.a(md)no.1401 of 2006 16. the claim petition in mcop no.160 of 2003 was filed by minor indumathi/first respondent, who sustained injuries in the same accident that occurred on 21.08.2002. the tribunal taking note of the injuries awarded a sum of rs.2,15,000/-. the said award is being challenged.17. though mr.d.muruganantham, learned special government pleader would submit that the determination of disability of 55% is on the higher side, the injuries sustained by the first respondent would substantiate the determination of disability at 55%. the claimant/first respondent sustained fracture of bone in the head, fracture in the right upper arm and due to that she had head pain and hand pain, loss of memory, loss of stamina, loss of strength, right had twisted and scars formed in the face, (7.5 x 2.5 measuring injury on the head with lot of fractures on the head bones and a lacerated wound on the membrane of the brain and fracture in the right hand over the alna and head region vide ex.p.7).18. that apart, the tribunal relied on ex.p.14 disability certificate and ex.p.15 x-ray and evidence of p.w.2 doctor, determined the said disability. there is no contra evidence by the appellants. therefore, the said determination cannot be found fault with and the same is confirmed. for disability a sum of rs.1,25,000/- was awarded and the same is confirmed. as far as rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and rs.50,000/- towards the medical expenses as per ex.p.10 (series) and rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment are very reasonable and the same cannot be found fault with.19. taking note of the injuries of disfigurement of the face of the claimant and also taking note of the injuries, the tribunal awarded rs.15,000/- towards loss of marital prospects. though this court is inclined to enhance the said amount, taking into consideration of the total award, this court is not enhancing the said award amount. as stated above, the entire liability is on the appellants and therefore, the entire amount of rs.2,15,000/- is liable to be paid by the appellants with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. c.m.a.no.1403 of 2006 20. the first respondent, namely, wife of deceased velayutham, who was a driver of the omni-van, filed the claim petition for the injuries sustained by her in the accident occurred on 21.08.2002.21. after contest, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs.2,00,000/-. the said award is challenged by the appellants in the present appeal. though mr.d.muruganantham, learned special government pleader contended that the determination of disability at 40% is on the higher side, a perusal of the award would show that based on the ex.p.16 disability certificate and ex.p.17 x-ray rightly determined the disability at 40%. moreover the first respondent/claimant sustained fracture of bone in the left hand, fracture in the right hip, fracture in the right fore head, eye brow and cheeks and injury no.1 and 2 are certified as grievous injuries. therefore, the determination of disability and award as per the judgment of this court reported in 2003 acj1210 cannot be found fault with. as such a sum of rs.15,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering, rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses and rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment are sustainable. no amount was awarded for transportation by the tribunal. however, taking into consideration of the total amount awarded to the claimants, this court is not inclined to award any amount towards transportation. since the liability has been fixed entirely on the appellants, the entire amount has to be paid by the appellants on or before 26.02.2014 or on 27.02.2014 through d.d. or banker's cheque before this court, failing which on 27.02.2014, the first appellant/superintendent of police shall appear before this court. in view of the above, these civil miscellaneous appeals are disposed of. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. no costs. skn to motor accident claims tribunal fast track court no.ii, tirunelveli. 
Judgment:

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

30. 01.2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.M.A(MD)No.1401 of 2008 C.M.A(MD)No.1402 to 1403 of 2008 and M.P(MD)Nos.2, 2 and 2 of 2008 1.The Superintendent of Police Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the District Collector, Thoothukudi District. 3.The Director General of Police (Law and Order) Chennai. .. Appellants in all CMAs vs 1.Minor Indumathi rep. by the natural guardian and her mother Maharasi 2.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Tirunelveli, rep. by its Branch Manager ..Respondents in C.M.A.No.1401 of 2008 1.Maharasi 2.Minor Indumathi 3.Minor Dinesh rep. by the natural guardian and her mother Maharasi. 4.V.Thirunavukarasu Pillai 5.Sankari 6.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Tirunelveli, rep. by its Branch Manager ..Respondents in C.M.A.No.1402 of 2008 1.Maharasi 2.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Tirunelveli, rep. by its Branch Manager ..Respondents in C.M.A.No.1403 of 2008 Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 12.06.2006 in MCOP Nos.160, 161 and 163 of 2003 respectively on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli. !For Appellants ... Mr.D.Muruganandham SGP ^For Claimants ... Mr.D.Saravanan For Insurance- Company ... Mr.V.R.Subramaniam :COMMON JUDGMENT

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the Police Officials against the common award dated 12.06.2006 by which 75% of the liability was fixed on the appellants' Jeep and 25% of the liability was fixed on the Maruthi omni-Van. These appeals are also filed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party as the owner of the Maruthi Van was not impleaded.

2. The accident occurred on 21.08.2002 when the appellants' Jeep and the Omni-Van dashed against each other, resulting in, death of four persons and causing injury of ten persons. The claim petitions were filed and the same were contested and the impugned awards have been passed.

3. Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would contend that the accident occurred in the centre of the road and both the vehicle dashed against each other and therefore, fixing of liability to an extent of 75% on the appellants' vehicle is wrong. He would also point out that the First Information Report was registered against only the Omni-Van driver. Therefore, if at all any negligence, it should be equal and seeks for reduction of liability from 75% to 50%.

4. On the other hand, Mr.V.R.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal rightly found that the accident occurred on the extreme left side of the road i.e., eastern side. When the omni-van was traveling from north to south, the police Jeep, which was coming from south to north, came in the extreme right side and crossed the centre point and dashed against the omni van, resulting in loss of so many lives. Though the Tribunal came to the conclusion based on the aforesaid manner, still it fixed 25% liability on the omni-van stating that the accident could have been averted if the driver of the omni-van applied break. The said finding is not sustainable. Therefore, he seeks exoneration from 25% liability also. Moreover, he would point out 25% liability cannot be fixed on the third respondent as the owner of the omni-van was not made as a party as the insured, namely, the owner of the omni van himself died in the accident.

5. Mr.D.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would support the argument of Mr.V.R.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and seeks for fixing of the entire liability on the police jeep.

6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records carefully.

7. The accident took away four precious lives and caused injuries to 10 persons. The accident occurred on 21.08.2002 when the omni-van was coming from north to south and the police jeep was coming from south to north. As rightly observed by the Tribunal that if the omni-van was coming from north to south, it should have come only on the left side, namely, eastern side. Similarly, jeep should keep itself on the western side when it was coming from south to north. However, after perusing Ex.P.4 photograph taken in the accident spot, the Tribunal factually came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on the eastern margin of the road, on which side, the omni-van was rightly driven. The Tribunal found that the accident should have occurred when the jeep was trying to overtake a vehicle going in front of it and in that process it went into right side, that is towards eastern side and dashed against the omni-van, which was coming in the right direction. Such a finding was given by the Tribunal based on evidence and also the probability. Therefore, the said finding cannot be disturbed. In view of that, the contention made by the appellants is rejected. Therefore, it is clear that the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the jeep.

8. Having given such a finding that jeep alone was responsible for the accident, the Tribunal wrongly concluded that the accident could have been averted by the driver of omni-van by applying break after seeing the jeep, as the road is straight road. It is only a perception of the Tribunal without any evidence. When the Tribunal already came to a categorical conclusion that the accident occurred because of the driver of the jeep alone (appellants' vehicle alone), the further finding is unwarranted and unnecessary and that apart, the finding is contrary to the factual position. Hence, the same is set aside.

9. In view of the above, the 25% liability fixed on the maruthi omni-van is set aside and this Court by re-appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case holds that the entire negligence is on the part of the jeep driver and therefore, the appellants alone are liable to pay the entire award amount. Even though there is no appeal by either Insurance company or by the claimants, this Court by re-appreciating the evidence gives the above finding as the appeals are continuation of the original proceedings. That apart, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to console, comfort and compensate the road accident victims. When factually wrong finding has been given, this Court cannot keep quite merely on the technicality that there is no appeal by the claimants or by the Insurance Company. Complete justice should be done and therefore, in an attempt to do complete justice, this Court finds that the entire negligence is on the part of the jeep driver and 100% liability is fixed on the jeep driver. Consequently, the appellants are liable to pay the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal.

10. The next point which was canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the owner of the omni-van was not impleaded as a party. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Though it appears to be a valid point, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said point is not sustainable as the owner of the van alone was driving the van and he himself lost his life in the accident. The legal-heirs of the van owner are the claimants. In that event, the legal-heirs, namely, owner of the vehicle have to be made as a party, which is not possible as the same party cannot be claimants as well as opposite party. Moreover, as found by this Court that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the omni-van and it was only the appellants jeep, which was solely responsible for the accident.

11. The individual appeals are arising out of the same accident regarding quantum are dealt with in the following manner:- C.M.A.(MD)No.1402 of 2006 12. The legal-heir of Velayutham, who died in the accident filed MCOP No.163 of 2002. The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased Velayutham, husband of the first respondent, who was driving the omni-van, at Rs.5,000/- even though there was a claim for Rs.15,000/- stating that he was running photo and vedio shops. Based on his age 44, multiplier '15' was adopted and loss of income after deduction of 1/3 was determined as Rs.6,00,000/- (5000 x 12 x 15 x 2/3 = 6,00,000) towards loss of income, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent, Rs.15,000/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 towards the loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- each to the parents of the deceased Velayutham towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of estate of the deceased, Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2000/- towards transportation, were awarded. In total, Rs.6,90,000/- was awarded.

13. Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would contend that the multiplier should be according to the age of the dependent, namely, the age of the parents of the deceased and in that regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Singh and another vs. Sabi Singh and another reported in 2008 AIR SCW1238 wherein, the age of the deceased or of claimants whichever higher has to be taken into account.

14. Though the said contention appears to be having force, the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mansoor and another vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported 2013(2) TAN MAC481declared that the selection of multiplier must be based on the age of the deceased and no on the basis of the age of the claimants. In view of the recent Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, multiplier 15' adopted by the Tribunal taking into consideration of the age of the deceased at 44 as per the post-morterm report Ex.P.6 cannot be found fault with and the same is confirmed. The other amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards the other heads and also determination of monthly income are all reasonable and therefore, the same cannot be interfered with and the award is confirmed. However, Rs.5,17,500/- towards 75% is set aside and the appellants are directed to pay the entire amount Rs.6,90,000/-. Since no rate of interest has been given, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2003, this Court awards 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of payment of compensation to the claimants.

15. So far no amount has been deposited by the appellants. Therefore, the appellants are directed to pay the entire amount along with interest and cost on or before 26.02.2014 or on 27.02.2014 D.D. should be produced before this Court, failing which on 27.02.2014, the appellant/Superintendent of Police shall appear before this Court. The above order is required to be passed considering the fate of the claimants. The claimants lost the head of the family in the accident, which occurred about more than a decade i.e., 21.08.2002. Not only, they lost the head of the family, but also, everybody in the family got injured in the accident. The award was passed in the year 2006. So far they have not been seen the color of the coin. In view of such a pitiable condition of the claimants alone, this Court is inclined to pass the above order. C.M.A(MD)No.1401 of 2006 16. The claim petition in MCOP No.160 of 2003 was filed by minor Indumathi/first respondent, who sustained injuries in the same accident that occurred on 21.08.2002. The Tribunal taking note of the injuries awarded a sum of Rs.2,15,000/-. The said award is being challenged.

17. Though Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the determination of disability of 55% is on the higher side, the injuries sustained by the first respondent would substantiate the determination of disability at 55%. The claimant/first respondent sustained fracture of bone in the head, fracture in the right upper arm and due to that she had head pain and hand pain, loss of memory, loss of stamina, loss of strength, right had twisted and scars formed in the face, (7.5 x 2.5 measuring injury on the head with lot of fractures on the head bones and a lacerated wound on the membrane of the brain and fracture in the right hand over the alna and head region vide Ex.P.7).

18. That apart, the Tribunal relied on Ex.P.14 disability certificate and Ex.P.15 X-ray and evidence of P.W.2 doctor, determined the said disability. There is no contra evidence by the appellants. Therefore, the said determination cannot be found fault with and the same is confirmed. For disability a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was awarded and the same is confirmed. As far as Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards the medical expenses as per Ex.P.10 (series) and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment are very reasonable and the same cannot be found fault with.

19. Taking note of the injuries of disfigurement of the face of the claimant and also taking note of the injuries, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of marital prospects. Though this court is inclined to enhance the said amount, taking into consideration of the total award, this Court is not enhancing the said award amount. As stated above, the entire liability is on the appellants and therefore, the entire amount of Rs.2,15,000/- is liable to be paid by the appellants with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. C.M.A.No.1403 of 2006 20. The first respondent, namely, wife of deceased Velayutham, who was a driver of the omni-van, filed the claim petition for the injuries sustained by her in the accident occurred on 21.08.2002.

21. After contest, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said award is challenged by the appellants in the present appeal. Though Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Special Government Pleader contended that the determination of disability at 40% is on the higher side, a perusal of the award would show that based on the Ex.P.16 disability certificate and Ex.P.17 X-ray rightly determined the disability at 40%. Moreover the first respondent/claimant sustained fracture of bone in the left hand, fracture in the right hip, fracture in the right fore head, eye brow and cheeks and injury No.1 and 2 are certified as grievous injuries. Therefore, the determination of disability and award as per the judgment of this Court reported in 2003 ACJ1210 cannot be found fault with. As such a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering, Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment are sustainable. No amount was awarded for transportation by the Tribunal. However, taking into consideration of the total amount awarded to the claimants, this Court is not inclined to award any amount towards transportation. Since the liability has been fixed entirely on the appellants, the entire amount has to be paid by the appellants on or before 26.02.2014 or on 27.02.2014 through D.D. or Banker's Cheque before this Court, failing which on 27.02.2014, the first appellant/Superintendent of Police shall appear before this Court. In view of the above, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. skn To Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli.