Madhu Vs. P. Sathyanarayanan and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(prayer: appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2005 made in m.c.o.p.no.43 of 2005 of the motor accidents claims tribunal, (additional district & sessions judge, fast track court), kallakurichy.) the injured, in a road accident, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, directed this appeal. 2. on 13.11.2002, the appellant sustained injury in a road accident. with regard to the injury, as there was inconsistent evidence, the tribunal disbelieved the medical evidence and concluded that it is a case of simple injury and granted only rs.7,300/-. this conclusion of the tribunal was mainly on the non-production of certain medical records. in the circumstances, cmp.no.20293 of 2005 has been filed under order 41 rule 27 of c.p.c. by the appellant seeking leave of the court to receive those record as additional documents. since they are required to pronounce judgment in this appeal, those additional documents, namely, the accident register and the discharge summary are marked as exs.p5 and 6 respectively. 3. the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that it is a clear case of grievous injury. the evidence adduced discloses that the appellant had sustained fracture. but, these aspects were not properly considered by the tribunal and that has resulted in granting the appellant very very less compensation. 4. on the other hand, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent/ insurance company would contend that evidence of p.ws.1 and 2 and the records are contradictory and that has been taken note of by the tribunal and the necessary compensation has been granted to the appellant. 5. i have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned judgment of the tribunal. 6. in view of exs.p5 and 6, namely, the accident register copy and the discharge summary, the matter requires fresh consideration. as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurance company that with regard to the seat of the injury claim petition contains one version, p.w.1 says one version and p.w.2 the doctor gives one version. ultimately, it has produced confusion. 7. it is pertinent here to mention the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that a claim petition cannot be tried like a criminal case in the sessions court or a complicated civil suit in a civil court. the learned counsel is right in his submission. but, at the same time, in trying a claim case, justice should not become a causality. the real sufferer must be compensated. but, on misplaced sympathy undeserved persons cannot get away with money. 8. now in this case, it is clear that the appellant sustained injury in the road accident on 13.11.2002. he had sustained injury on his leg and hip. perusal of the evidence and the medical records shows that he had sustained fracture. in this perspective of the matter, the confusion created in mentioning the seat of the injury pale into insignificance. it is clear that the appellant had sustained grievous injury. he was hospitalized for 24 days. he was a coolie. earned rs.5,000/- p.m. in the facts and circumstances, the compensation of rs.7,300/- awarded by the tribunal is deleted. on fresh consideration, he is granted compensation as under:- for grievous injuriesrs. 12,000.00for pain and sufferingrs. 5,000.00extra-nourishment chargesrs. 5,000.00attendant chargesrs. 5,000.00loss of income during treatment period(rs.5,000/- x 2 = rs.10,000/-) rs. 10,000.00transportation chargesrs. 4,000.00totalrs. 41,000.009. in the result, the award of the tribunal is modified. the appellant is awarded a total compensation of rs.41,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till deposit. the second respondent shall deposit the entire compensation amount within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less amount, if any, already deposited. on deposit, the appellant shall be permitted to withdraw the entire amount, less amount, if any, already withdrawn. this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. no costs. consequently, the connected m.p.no.20293 of 2005 is also allowed.

Judgment:

(PRAYER: Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court), Kallakurichy.)

The injured, in a road accident, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, directed this appeal.

2. On 13.11.2002, the appellant sustained injury in a road accident. With regard to the injury, as there was inconsistent evidence, the Tribunal disbelieved the medical evidence and concluded that it is a case of simple injury and granted only Rs.7,300/-. This conclusion of the Tribunal was mainly on the non-production of certain medical records. In the circumstances, CMP.No.20293 of 2005 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. by the appellant seeking leave of the Court to receive those record as additional documents. Since they are required to pronounce judgment in this appeal, those Additional documents, namely, the Accident Register and the Discharge Summary are marked as Exs.P5 and 6 respectively.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that it is a clear case of grievous injury. The evidence adduced discloses that the appellant had sustained fracture. But, these aspects were not properly considered by the Tribunal and that has resulted in granting the appellant very very less compensation.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company would contend that evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the records are contradictory and that has been taken note of by the Tribunal and the necessary compensation has been granted to the appellant.

5. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned Judgment of the Tribunal.

6. In view of Exs.P5 and 6, namely, the Accident Register copy and the Discharge Summary, the matter requires fresh consideration. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that with regard to the seat of the injury claim petition contains one version, P.W.1 says one version and P.W.2 the Doctor gives one version. Ultimately, it has produced confusion.

7. It is pertinent here to mention the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that a claim petition cannot be tried like a Criminal case in the Sessions Court or a complicated civil suit in a Civil Court. The learned counsel is right in his submission. But, at the same time, in trying a claim case, justice should not become a causality. The real sufferer must be compensated. But, on misplaced sympathy undeserved persons cannot get away with money.

8. Now in this case, it is clear that the appellant sustained injury in the road accident on 13.11.2002. He had sustained injury on his leg and hip. Perusal of the evidence and the medical records shows that he had sustained fracture. In this perspective of the matter, the confusion created in mentioning the seat of the injury pale into insignificance. It is clear that the appellant had sustained grievous injury. He was hospitalized for 24 days. He was a coolie. Earned Rs.5,000/- p.m. In the facts and circumstances, the compensation of Rs.7,300/- awarded by the Tribunal is deleted. On fresh consideration, he is granted compensation as under:-

For Grievous injuries	Rs. 12,000.00
For Pain and suffering	Rs. 5,000.00
Extra-nourishment Charges	Rs. 5,000.00
Attendant charges	Rs. 5,000.00
Loss of income during treatment period(Rs.5,000/- x 2 = Rs.10,000/-)	 Rs. 10,000.00
Transportation Charges	Rs. 4,000.00
Total	Rs. 41,000.00

9. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is modified. The appellant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.41,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till deposit. The second respondent shall deposit the entire compensation amount within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less amount, if any, already deposited. On deposit, the appellant shall be permitted to withdraw the entire amount, less amount, if any, already withdrawn. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.20293 of 2005 is also allowed.