(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3840 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai dated 22.7.2015.
This Cross Appeal is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C against the award dated 22.07.2015 and made in MCOP.No.3840/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal IV Judge, Small Causes, Chennai.)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 22.07.2015, made in M.C.O.P.No.3840 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai.
2. Both the appeal and cross objection arise out of the same accident and same award. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The Oriental Insurance company is the appellant, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3840/2012.
4. The accident occurred on 08.06.2012 at about 19.00 hrs at Kadalur to Kaathankadai Via near Muthugramini House. Koovathur Police Station, Kancheepuram District registered a case in Crime No.250/2012.
5. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petition.
6. As per the claim petition, the respondent/claimant state that he sustained injuries more specifically, Skull Bone Fracture and left Shoulder fracture and multiple grievous injuries all over the body and he was admitted in CMC Hospital, Chengalpattu and thereafter, referred to Government General Hospital, Chennai from 08.06.2012 to 21.06.2012. Thereafter, the respondent/claimant was taking treatment in a Private Hospital.
7. The Claim petition was filed claiming a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards compensation.
8. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with regard to the responsibility, more specifically, on the point of rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent of the 1st respondent and accordingly, decided the issues as such. Regarding the entitlement of compensation, which is now questioned before this Court in the present appeal, this Court has to consider the nature of the injuries sustained as per the medical report. The following injuries are stated in the report:
9. The respondent/claimant has further stated that on account of the fracture and grievous injuries, he was unable to freely move his hands and he is unable to lift his hand. He is continuously suffering pain on account of the fracture and he is unable to freely perform his normal works in the house.
10. Ex.P2 is the Discharge summary. Ex.P3 is the Medical bills. The xerox and photo copies and previous accident, facts were marked in support of the case of the respondent/cross objector. The Doctor, who examined the petitioner and issued the disability certificate. In Ex.P9 explained the fracture and he opined injury sustained by the respondent/claimant are permanent partial disability and accordingly, fixed the disability percentage as 50%. The Tribunal, considering the facts and the circumstances as well as the nature of injuries sustained, fixed the disability as 45% and accordingly, granted the compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- towards disability. Regarding other heads, the Tribunal granted compensation and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company mainly contended that an amount of Rs.75,000/- granted under the head of Pain and Suffering is excessive. Further, he has questioned the grant of future medical expenses as well as the loss of future prospects.
11. This Court is of the considered opinion that that Tribunal would have granted compensation on several heads. However, the overall compensation awarded is also to be taken into consideration, while considering the grounds for appeal. In the event of any perversity in fixing the quantum of compensation, then alone, the Appellate Court can interfere and merely on the ground of different heads cannot be a ground to reduce the compensation, which was granted otherwise with reference to the facts and circumstances.
12. Granting compensation on different heads is a matter of convenience for the Tribunal to ascertain the just compensation and in all other respects, the overall entitlement for compensation is also to be considered. Thus, reducing some compensation under one or two heads may not be an issue as far as the total compensation granted is concerned.
13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Cross objector mainly contended that it is a case of grievous injury and therefore, the Multiplier ought to have been adopted. The Tribunal has committed an error in granting compensation on the basis of disability, which was assessed as 45%. Such a procedure adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous as the injuries succumbed are grave, which caused permanent disability to the claimant.
14. This Court is of the considered opinion that the nature of the injury reveals that the same are grievous. This apart, the Doctor assessed the disability as partial permanent disability. The Tribunal has not reduced much and 50% disability granted in the Doctor certificate is reduced as 45% and therefore, the same cannot be construed as irregular or perverse.
15. Thus, this Court is not inclined to modify the award already granted and the objections raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that in some heads, the cost amount has been awarded, deserves no merit consideration in view of the fact that there is no perversity in respect of the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
16. The appellant/Insurance Company had already been deposited 50% of the award amount. Thus, the appellant is directed to deposit the balance award amoun
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t with accrued interest within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal and all the payments are to be made through RTGS. 17. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3840 of 2012 is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.590 of 2016 stands dismissed. In view of the orders passed in the appeal, Cross Objection No.43 of 2016 is also dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.