MANAGING DIRECTOR PURATCHI THALAIVAR M G R Vs. S GIRISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the Transport Corporation challenging the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras, dated 6.8.1996 made in M.C.O.P.No.1663 of 1993, fixing the liability on the Transport Corporation to pay a compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- with interest at 12% per annum.

(2.) IT is stated that the claimant who suffered grievous injuries, was 26 years old at the time of the accident. He was employed as a Clerk in a private firm Cameo Share Registry Pvt. Ltd. on a monthly salary of Rs.1,400/-. He was a bachelor. The accident occurred on 26.2.1993 at about 9.50 p.m. in Anna Salai, Little Mount, Madras. The claimant was proceeding by walk from east to west. IT is stated that the Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TCB 6126, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the pedestrian from behind. The front wheel ran over the claimant's left thigh. This resulted in fracture in the pelvic region. The claimant remained as in-patient in the Government Hospital from 26.2.1993 to 28.5.1993. His left leg was amputated beneath the hip and and above the knee, thus leading to the permanent disability. IT is stated that the disability suffered was to the extent of 80%. He had to go in for an artificial limb. He had expended heavily. IT is also stated that he lost his job. The claimant petitioned for a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.

(3.) ON the question of quantum, the claimant marked documents to substantiate his treatment as an in-patient. Ex.P1 is the discharge summary. The petitioner also marked Exs.P3 to P5, the evidence of his treatment in the Government Institute of Rehabilitation Centre in K.K.Nagar, Madras. The document showed that the disability is marked at 80%. The Assistant Professor of Surgery, Madras Medical College, examined himself as P.W.3. Ex.P14 is the disability certificate issued by him. It is stated that the left leg had to be amputated below the hip and above the knee. He also found the damage caused to the pelvic bone. He also certified the disability at 80%, which is supported by Exs.P3 to P5. It is stated that to fix an artificial limb, the claimant would require a further sum of Rs.40,000/-. The correspondence with the agency at Bombay who are specialists in fitting artificial limb, are marked as Exs.P10 and P11. As per this, the claimant would have to spend a sum of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- for getting himself fitted with an artificial limb. The Tribunal found that even though the claimant was treated in the Government Hospital, he had to spend for purchase of medicines not available in the Government Hospital. The claimant also claimed that he had taken physiotherapy treatment costing him about Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal granted compensation towards medical bill, treatment in the physiotherapy centre as well as for fixing of artificial limb of Indian make, etc. ON the question of compensation on account of the disability suffered, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551 (R.D.HATTANGADI Vs. PEST CONTROL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS) and held that under pecuniary damages, it included the expenses incurred towards medical attendance, loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial and other material loss. Non-pecuniary damages include damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered and likely to be suffered in future, damage on account of loss of amenities of life, damages for loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. The Tribunal noted that the claimant was a young man about 26 years old. The accident and the disability caused thereon had a serious impact on his future life and to the quality of life. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of earning and another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards permanent disability, apart from further charges granted under the various heads, thus totalling in all Rs.3,25,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. Aggrieved of the same, the Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.