L.Mathaiyan Vs. Syed Vahid - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1169149
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnAug-05-2013
JudgeC.S.KARNAN
AppellantL.Mathaiyan
RespondentSyed Vahid
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras dated: 05.08.2013 coram the hon'ble mr.justice c.s.karnan c.m.a.no.2131 of 2003 l.mathaiyan .appellant vs 1.syed vahid proprietor sabeda transport (sr.devi bus) 82-e, main road, hosur, tharmapuri dt. 2.the united india insurance co.ltd.m.m.reddy complex hosur.respondents civil miscellaneous appeal filed under section 173 of the motor vehicle act, 1988, against the award and decree made in m.a.c.t.o.p.no.260 of 1996, dated 24.12.1996 on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal, (sub-court).hosur, praying to set aside the same. for appellant : mr.j.a.selvakumar for respondents: r1 - dismissed r2 - served judgment the appellant herein / claimant has filed the claim petition in m.c.o.p.no.260 of 1996, against the respondents herein stating that on 09.03.1992, at about 12.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on his bicycle on the krishnagiri main road, the respondent's bus bearing registration no.tan-7999, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a negligent manner, dashed against him. as a result, he had sustained injuries and hence, the claim has been filed and a compensation of rs.1,50,000/- was claimed. 2.the insurance company has filed counter statement and resisted the claim petition. the respondent stated that the accident had not been committed by the driver of the bus and that it was caused only due to negligence of the claimant. the averments in the claim regarding age, income and nature of injuries was also not admitted. 3.on verifying the averments of both parties, the tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) whether the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent?. and (2) whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation?. if so, what is the quantum of compensation?. 4.on the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and 12 documents were marked as exhibits p1 to p12 namely, ex.p1-f.i.r; ex.p2-medical discharge summary; ex.p3-medical chits; exs.p4 to p7-medical bills; ex.p8-investigation proof; ex.p9-transport bill; ex.p10-bills for damages to cycle; ex.p11-wound certificate; and ex.p12-disability certificate. on the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. pw1 had adduced evidence that on 09.03.1992, at about 12.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on the krishnagiri main road, on the extreme left of the road, the 1st respondent's bus bearing registration no.tan-7999, coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. pw1 further stated that in the said accident, his left hand bone had been fractured and he was hospitalised for three days at government hospital, krishnagiri. thereafter, he has been hospitalised at st.john hospital, bangalore, as inpatient for a period of 15 days. 5.pw2, doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained 7 grievous injuries and his left hand had been fractured. pw3, another doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant's left hand bone was fractured and surgical operation had been conducted and steel plate was fixed in the operated area. pw3, further stated that the claimant's left shoulder collar bone was fractured and malunited. 6.on considering the evidence of the witnesses, the tribunal had granted a sum of rs.42,000/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the above appeal has been filed for additional compensation. notice has been served on the insurance company, who had contested the case and at the time of final hearing, no one had appeared on behalf of the insurance company. therefore, this court is constrained to pass final order on merits. 7.the highly competent counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and surgical operation was also conducted on his left hand and a steel plate was fixed in the operated area. the claimant has been hospitalised for about 18 days as an inpatient and he had spent a sum of rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. the doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained 7 grievous injuries including bone fracture. 8.on considering the factual position 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 discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence and liability. however, the quantum of compensation is on the lower side since it is evident that the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries on his left hand and left shoulder and also a surgical operation was conducted on his left hand. therefore, this court is inclined to grant additional compensation as follows:- rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head of disability; rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering; rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses; rs.2,500/- towards transport; rs.2,500/- towards nutrition; rs.2,500/- towards attender charges; rs.2,500/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment period and rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort. in total, this court awards rs.70,000/- as compensation as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. after deducting initial compensation of a sum of rs.42,000/- awarded, this court grants additional compensation of a sum of rs.28,000/- as additional compensation. this additional compensation will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation. this court directs the 2nd respondent / united india insurance company limited to deposit the said amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9.after such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire additional compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of m.c.o.p.no.260 of 1996, on the file of motor accident claims tribunal, (subordinate court).hosur, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. 10.in the result, the above civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. consequently, the award and decree, passed in m.c.o.p.no.260 of 1996, dated 24.12.1996, on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal, (subordinate court).hosur, is modified. no costs. vs to 1.the motor accident claims tribunal, subordinate court, hosur. 2.the section officer, vr section, high court, madras.
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.08.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.2131 of 2003 L.Mathaiyan .Appellant vs 1.Syed Vahid Proprietor Sabeda Transport (Sr.Devi Bus) 82-E, Main Road, Hosur, Tharmapuri Dt.

2.The United India Insurance Co.LTD.M.M.Reddy Complex Hosur.Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award and decree made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.260 of 1996, dated 24.12.1996 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub-Court).Hosur, praying to set aside the same.

For Appellant : Mr.J.A.Selvakumar For Respondents: R1 - Dismissed R2 - Served JUDGMENT

The appellant herein / claimant has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.260 of 1996, against the respondents herein stating that on 09.03.1992, at about 12.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on his bicycle on the Krishnagiri Main Road, the respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TAN-7999, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a negligent manner, dashed against him.

As a result, he had sustained injuries and hence, the claim has been filed and a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed.

2.The Insurance Company has filed counter statement and resisted the claim petition.

The respondent stated that the accident had not been committed by the driver of the bus and that it was caused only due to negligence of the claimant.

The averments in the claim regarding age, income and nature of injuries was also not admitted.

3.On verifying the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Whether the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent?.

and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation?.

If so, what is the quantum of compensation?.

4.On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and 12 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P12 namely, Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-Medical discharge summary; Ex.P3-Medical chits; Exs.P4 to P7-Medical bills; Ex.P8-Investigation proof; Ex.P9-Transport bill; Ex.P10-Bills for damages to cycle; Ex.P11-Wound certificate; and Ex.P12-Disability Certificate.

On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

PW1 had adduced evidence that on 09.03.1992, at about 12.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on the Krishnagiri Main Road, on the extreme left of the road, the 1st respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TAN-7999, coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him.

PW1 further stated that in the said accident, his left hand bone had been fractured and he was hospitalised for three days at Government Hospital, Krishnagiri.

Thereafter, he has been hospitalised at St.John Hospital, Bangalore, as inpatient for a period of 15 days.

5.PW2, Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained 7 grievous injuries and his left hand had been fractured.

PW3, another Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant's left hand bone was fractured and surgical operation had been conducted and steel plate was fixed in the operated area.

PW3, further stated that the claimant's left shoulder collar bone was fractured and malunited.

6.On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.42,000/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the above appeal has been filed for additional compensation.

Notice has been served on the Insurance Company, who had contested the case and at the time of final hearing, no one had appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company.

Therefore, this Court is constrained to pass final order on merits.

7.The highly competent counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and surgical operation was also conducted on his left hand and a steel plate was fixed in the operated area.

The claimant has been hospitalised for about 18 days as an inpatient and he had spent a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses.

The Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained 7 grievous injuries including bone fracture.

8.On considering the factual position 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 discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence and liability.

However, the quantum of compensation is on the lower side since it is evident that the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries on his left hand and left shoulder and also a surgical operation was conducted on his left hand.

Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant additional compensation as follows:- Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head of disability; Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.2,500/- towards transport; Rs.2,500/- towards nutrition; Rs.2,500/- towards attender charges; Rs.2,500/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment period and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort.

In total, this Court awards Rs.70,000/- as compensation as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case.

After deducting initial compensation of a sum of Rs.42,000/- awarded, this Court grants additional compensation of a sum of Rs.28,000/- as additional compensation.

This additional compensation will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation.

This Court directs the 2nd respondent / United India Insurance Company Limited to deposit the said amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

9.After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire additional compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.260 of 1996, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Court).Hosur, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order.

10.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.

Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.260 of 1996, dated 24.12.1996, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Court).Hosur, is modified.

No costs.

vs To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Hosur.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.