Madras High Court

S.Renuka vs The Managing Director on 14 June, 2022

                                                                          C.M.A. No.2451 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 14.06.2022

                                                        CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
                                                   and
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                               C.M.A.No.2451 of 2021

                  S.Renuka                                                        .. Appellant

                                                          Vs.

                  The Managing Director,
                  Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Ltd.,
                  Vellore.                                                     .. Respondent


                  Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
                  Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2019, made
                  in M.C.O.P. No.456 of 2013, on the file of the Principal Special Court under
                  E.C. & NDPS Act, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Chennai.


                                        For Appellant     : Mrs.Ramya V. Rao

                                        For Respondent    : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran




                  _____
                  1/11



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              C.M.A. No.2451 of 2021

                                                    JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.]

This appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation granted

by the award dated 14.10.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.456 of 2013, on the file

of the Principal Special Court under E.C. & NDPS Act, (Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal) Chennai.

2.The appellant-claimant filed M.C.O.P. No.456 of 2013, on the file of

the Principal Special Court under E.C. & NDPS Act, (Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal) Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the

injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 23.08.2012.

3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by

driver of the Bus owned by the respondent-Transport Corporation and

directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,41,000/- as compensation to the

appellant.

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.2451 of 2021

4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in the

award dated 14.10.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.456 of 2013, the appellant has

come out with the present appeal.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that in

the accident, the appellant sustained severe head and facial fracture and lost

eye vision. P.W.2 Doctor certified that the appellant suffered 35% disability

for head and facial fracture and 40% disability for vision loss. The Tribunal,

without any reason, reduced the same to 37% and awarded only a meagre sum

of Rs.1,11,000/- as compensation towards disability. Due to the facial

fractures, the appellant sustained disfiguration of face. The Tribunal did not

award any amount towards disfiguration and also erred in rejecting the

medical bills worth Rs.82,748/-. At the time of accident, the appellant was

working as a Tailor and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. Having

sustained fractures on head and face, the appellant is unable to continue her

avocation as Tailor for atleast nine months. The Tribunal failed to award any

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.2451 of 2021

amount towards loss of income. Considering the fact that the appellant lost

her vision, which prevents her from doing the avocation as a Tailor, the

Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier method in awarding compensation.

The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings and loss of

amenities are meagre. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation

towards extra nourishment and future medical expenses and prayed for

enhancement of the compensation.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

Transport Corporation contended that the appellant did not file any document

to prove her avocation and income. The Tribunal, in the absence of any

documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the appellant and

considering the disability assessed by P.W.2 Doctor, rightly determined the

disability for whole body and awarded compensation towards loss of earning

capacity. The appellant failed to prove that she suffered functional disability

and lost earning capacity. Hence, she is not entitled to compensation by

adopting multiplier method. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.2451 of 2021

under different heads are not meagre. The appellant has not made out any

case for enhancement of the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

7.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the

respondent-Transport Corporation and perused the materials available on

record.

8.From the materials on record, it is seen that in the accident, the

appellant suffered severe head and facial fractures. She has examined

Dr.Saravanabhavanandam as P.W.2 to prove the injuries sustained and

percentage of disability suffered by her. P.W.2 Doctor assessed and certified

that the appellant suffered 35% disability for the injuries in the head and face

and 40% disability for loss of vision. P.W.2 Doctor is not an Ophthalmologist.

The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the appellant, without anybody's

help attended Court proceedings and gave evidence on her own. Having taken

note of the same, the Tribunal erred in taking into account the alleged 40%

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.2451 of 2021

disability certified by P.W.2 Doctor. The Tribunal, taking into consideration

the loss of vision, converted the disability to whole body and fixed 37% as

disability and applied percentage method and granted compensation at the

rate of Rs.3,000/- per percentage for 37% disability. The appellant has not

produced any material evidence to show that she suffered functional

disability and lost her earning capacity. In such circumstances, the appellant

is not entitled for compensation by adopting multiplier method. The accident

is of the year 2012. The sum of Rs.3,000/- granted per percentage is not

meagre. Hence, the same is confirmed. The appellant has taken treatment as

in-patient at Srinivasa Specialty Hospital from 10.09.2012 to 22.09.2012. The

Tribunal has granted a consolidated sum of Rs.10,000/- towards

transportation, attendant charges and other miscellaneous expenses. From the

photographs produced by the appellant, it is seen that the appellant suffered

face injuries and her face has disfigured. Considering the above, we set aside

the consolidated sum of Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards

transportation, attendant charges and miscellaneous expenses and we hereby

award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, Rs.15,000/- towards

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.2451 of 2021

attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.1,000/-

towards loss of cloth. The amount of Rs.10,000/- each awarded by the

Tribunal towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities are meagre and

hence the same are enhanced to Rs.25,000/- each.

9.The appellant claimed that she was working as a Tailor and was

earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. She has not filed any document to

prove her avocation and income. In the absence of any document with regard

to avocation and income, taking into consideration the date of accident, we

fix the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.9,000/-. Due to the injuries

sustained in the accident, the appellant would not have worked for six months

and hence, we are awarding a sum of Rs.54,000/- (Rs.9,000/- x 6 months)

towards loss of income for a period of six months. It is the contention of the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Tribunal erroneously rejected

Ex.P10 – medical bills, which was produced for a sum of Rs.82,748/- towards

medical expenses. The appellant has taken treatment from 10.09.2012 to

22.09.2012 at Srinivasa Specialty Hospital and Government Royapetta

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.2451 of 2021

Hospital. From Ex.P10, it is seen that except two bills, other bills are

computer generated bills issued by Srinivasa Specialty Hospital, Hosur. In

Ex.P10, the appellant has produced two bills dated 11.09.2012, issued by the

Narayana Hirudayala Hospital. From the materials on record, it is seen that

the appellant was admitted in the Srinivasa Specialty Hospital on 10.09.2012,

has underwent a surgery on 12.09.2012 and discharged on 22.09.2012.

Hence, the bills dated 11.09.2012, issued by the Narayana Hirudayala

Hospital viz., Rs.100/- towards registration charges and Rs.1,540/- towards

'Packed Red Blood Cells (PC)' are rejected. Excluding the said two bills, the

appellant is entitled to Rs.81,108/-, towards medical expenses, as per Ex.P10.

The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of earning

capacity is just and reasonable and hence, the same is hereby confirmed.

Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:

S. No Description Amount awarded Amount Award by Tribunal awarded by this confirmed or (Rs) Court (Rs) enhanced or granted

1. Loss of earning capacity 1,11,000/- 1,11,000/- Confirmed

2. Transportation, 10,000/- - Set aside attendant charges and other miscellaneous expenses

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.2451 of 2021