(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dt. 07.07.2023 passed in MCOP No.69/2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Additional Sub Court Chengalpattu @ kancheepuram District.)

N. Mala, J.

(1) The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Award of the Claims Tribunal, dated 07.07.2023, made in MCOP.No.69/2015, in awarding a sum of Rs.28,93,000/- to the claimant, has filed the above appeal.

(2) For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the appeal.

(3) The summary of facts leading to this appeal, are as follows:- On 12.04.2015, at about 15.00 hours, when the 1st respondent along with others was returning to Kalpakkam in Tata City Rider bearing Regn.No.TN-49-AP-0416, after attending a betrothal function, and when the vehicle was nearing Perumalcheri bridge, on the ECR Road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the vehicle capsized. Due to the impact, the 1st respondent sustained grievous injuries all over the body. According to the 1st respondent, she was aged 32 years, was self employed and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, at the time of the accident. The 1st respondent, therefore filed the claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.35,05,000/- as compensation along with interest and cost.

(4) The 1st respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, remained exparte before the Claims Tribunal. The claim petition was contested by the appellant. The appellant, in its counter, denied the manner of accident, negligence, liability and the quantum of compensation claimed by the 1st respondent. The appellant also denied the age, employment and earning of the 1st respondent and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

(5) Before the Claims Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as PW1 and marked 65 documents. On the side of the appellant, no evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced. The Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Court document under Ex.C1.

(6) The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, framed the necessary issues. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.P1, the FIR dated 12.04.2015, Ex.P2- Alteration Report and Ex.P3-the order passed in STC.No.396/2015, dated 11.12.2015, by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram, found that the negligence of the driver of Tata City Rider, resulted in the accident and that the appellant was liable to indemnify the insured since there was a valid, subsisting policy for the Tata City Rider at the time of the accident. The Claims Tribunal also rejected the contention of the appellant that the vehicle involved in the accident, was not authorised to carry passengers and that there was violation of the policy conditions by the 1st respondent.

(7) On the basis of Exs.P5 to P19, the Discharge Summary and the Medical records, and on the basis of Exs.P25 to P34, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,29,006/- towards medical expenses. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.C1, the Permanent Disability Certificate, issued by the Medical Board, fixing the permanent disability at 60%, assessed the functional disability at 50%, considering that the 1st respondent had lost her working capacity as a tailor and was disabled from doing domestic work due to amputation of her let hand thumb. The Claims Tribunal deemed it fit to adopt the multiplier method and awarded a total compensation of Rs28,93,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal.

(8) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding double compensation under the heads ‘’function disability’’ and ‘’permanent disability’’. The learned counsel submitted that the Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding a sum of Rs.1 lakh under the head ‘’loss of income’’, despite awarding separate amounts under the aforesaid heads. The learned counsel further contended that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and speculative and therefore, the same requires to be interfered with. The learned counsel submitted that in any event, the overall quantum was not fixed according to the settled legal principles.

(9) The learned counsel for the 1st respondent supported the judgment of the Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent, the Award was fair and reasonable and therefore, it requires no interference.

(10) We have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record before us.

(11) The only issue that falls for consideration before us is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, is excessive and against the principles of law.

(12) From Ex.P6, the Discharge Summary, it is seen that the following injuries were sustained by the 1st respondent:-

                     1.Crush injury left hand and wrist with near complete thumb amputation.

                     2.Fracture both bones, left forearm mid shaft.

                     3.Soft Tissue injury face.

(13) In the Discharge Summary, the procedures conducted on the 1st respondent for treating the injuries suffered by her, were recorded. They are as follows:-

                     1. Completion amputation thumb MC level/wound wash/debridement.

                     2. Wound debridement left hand with shortening of left middle finger dip level, abdominal falp cover to palm and hand dorsum and SSG to secondary defect and wounds over index, middle, right and little fingers and K-wire stbilization to little finger.

                     3. Wound wash left hand

                     4. Flap delay and wound debridement left hand.

                     5. Flap Division – Inset/Open reduction/Tens nailing left ulna.

(14) The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.2 lakhs towards ‘Pain and Sufferings’ and Rs.1 lakh towards ‘Extra Nourishment’. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the 1st respondent and the period of hospitalization underwent by her, we are of the view that the amounts awarded towards ‘Extra Nourishment’ and ‘Pain and Suffering’, are on the higher side. We are therefore, inclined to reduce the amounts under the aforesaid heads. Accordingly, we fix a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ and a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘Extra Nourishment’.

(15) Insofar as compensation towards ‘functional disability’ is concerned, we confirm the award of the Claims Tribunal. Tthe Claims Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.C1, assessed the functional disability at 50%, since the 1st respondent was disabled from continuing as a tailor and from doing her regular chores. However, we find that the Claims Tribunal, erroneously awarded double compensation for the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent, by adopting the unit method for assessing the loss towards permanent disability of 60% and the multiplier method for the functional disability at 50%. Hence, we are inclined to disallow the compensation towards ‘’total permanent disability’’.

(16) We find that the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1 lakh towards ‘’loss of income’’. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, instead of awarding the same under the head ‘’loss of income’’, we are of the view that the claimant can be awarded the same sum under the head ‘’loss of amenities’’.

(17) In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Award of the Claims Tribunal is modified as follows:-