(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Namakkal, in M.C.O.P.Nos.16 & 17 of 2002 dated 21.07.2007.)

Common Judgment:

1. These appeals have been filed against the common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Namakkal, in M.C.O.P.Nos.16 & 17 of 2002 dated 21.07.2007.

2. The case of the claimants is that on 10.11.2001, the claimants were travelling in a tractor as load men and at about 11.30 a.m., the offending vehicle, a parcel service lorry, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tractor as a result of which the claimants sustained serious injuries. Insofar as the claimant in M.C.O.P. No.16 of 2002 is concerned, he underwent treatment as an inpatient for 28 days and claimant in M.C.O.P. No.17 of 2002 underwent treatment as inpatient for 39 days. Under these circumstances, the claim petitions came to be filed before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances and on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal having rendered the above finding fixed total compensation in M.C.O.P. No.16 of 2002 at Rs.1,36,000/- and in M.C.O.P.No. 17 of 2002 at Rs.2,11,000/- under the following heads:

                  

The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals came to be filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. The bone of contention in both these appeals is regarding the injury suffered by claimants and the manner in which the Tribunal had assessed the disability suffered and granted compensation under the head ‘disability’.

5. These appeals came up for hearing on 18.10.2024 and the following order came to be passed by this Court:

                   “The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that on account of the accident that occurred on 10.11.2001, one of the appellants had lost his vision of his left eye.

                   2. In the instant case, the claimants were not examined by the Medical Board for the purpose of issuance of disability certificate.

                   3. Therefore, before passing any further orders in this case, this Court wants to refer the appellants to the Medical Board. Hence, the Medical Board attached to the Government Hospital, Namakkal, shall assess the disability of the appellants, claimants and also the consequence of such disability. The disability certificates shall be submitted to this Court before the next date of hearing.

                   4. Registry is directed to get the records and post the appeals on 30.10.2024.”

6. Pursuant to the above order, both the appellants appeared before the Medical Board. The Medical Board has assessed the disability and the opinion of the Medical Board has also been forwarded to this Court.

7. Insofar as Mr.A.Nagaraj is concerned, who is the appellant in C.M.A.No.627 of 2013, the Medical Board has rendered an opinion that he does not suffer from any disability.

8. Insofar as Mr.M.Selvaraj is concerned, who is the appellant in C.M.A.No.628 of 2013, the Medical Board has assessed the disability at 55%. The Medical Board has also opined that the ankle needs another surgery to improve the disability.

9. In the light of the reports received from the Medical Board, this Court heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for second respondent. This Court also considered the materials available on record and carefully went through the award passed by the Tribunal.

10. Insofar as C.M.A.No.627 of 2013 is concerned, learned counsel for appellant impressed upon this Court to go through the evidence of PW-4, doctor, since apart from ortho problem, it is contended that the appellant also sustained eye injury, which is clear from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4.

11. The Tribunal rendered a finding that there is absolutely no record available to establish that PW-4 had in fact gone to the hospital where the claimant was admitted and conducted eye test. Therefore, the Tribunal disbelieved the version projected by the appellant that he had also sustained eye injury. This finding rendered by the Tribunal has now been confirmed by the Medical Board, which has categorically reached a conclusion that the appellant in C.M.A.No.627 of 2013 does not suffer from any disability.

12. This Court finds that the compensation fixed under various heads for the appellant in C.M.A.No.627 of 2013 is just and reasonable and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P No.16 of 2002 is confirmed.

13. Insofar as appellant in C.M.A.No.628 of 2013 is concerned, the Tribunal had fixed the disability at 45% and granted compensation under the head ‘disability’ at Rs.45,000/-. The report sent by the Medical Board shows that the appellant in this appeal suffers from 55% disability. Hence, this report is acted upon and this Court is inclined to fix the compensation under the head ‘disability’ at Rs.55,000/- (55 x 1000).

14. The appellant, in this appeal, had undergone treatment as an inpatient for nearly 39 days. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation under the heads ‘pain and sufferings’, ‘loss of income’ and ‘extra nourishment’ to Rs.15,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.7,500/- respectively. The compensation awarded under the others heads are just and reasonable and do not require the interference of this Court.

15. In the light of the above discussion, this Court modifies the compensation in M.C.O.P.No.17 of 2002 [C.M.A.No.628 of 2013] in the following manner:

                  

16. The second respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.16 of 2002 [C.M.A.No.627 of 2013] and the enhanced compensation awarded by this Court in M.C.O.P.No.17 of 2002 [C.M.A.No.628 of 2013], less the amount already deposited, together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same on due application. Insofar as the enhanced compensation is concerned, the deficit court fee, if not paid, shall be paid by the appellant in C.M.A.No.628 of 2013. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. The guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.2064 of 2026, dated 08.07.2026 shall be strictly complied with respect to disbursement of compensation amount to the claimants.

In the result,

                   (a) C.M.A.No.627 of 2013 is dismissed.

                   (b)C.M.A.No.628 of 2013 is partly allowed.

No costs