The assessment of compensation in motor vehicle accidents must consider not only the immediate injuries but also long-term rehabilitation needs, effectively restoring the injured party to their pre-accident state.

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Award passed by the 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.7781 of 2018, the petitioner therein has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 [‘M.V. Act’ for short], praying to enhance the compensation.

2. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Claim Petition.

PETITIONER’S CASE

3. The case of the petitioner is that on November 10, 2018 at about 20.30 hours, when the petitioner was waiting in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-01-AQ-3677 for the signal to turn West near Murasolimaran Flyover, Madhavaram High Road, Perambur, Chennai, the respondent’s bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-4235, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed behind the motorcycle. Consequently, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai, and thereafter to Billroth Hospital, Chennai. He was also taking treatment in other private hospitals. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, his left leg had to be amputated. The driver of the said respondent’s bus is alone responsible for the accident. The respondent, being the owner of the bus, is vicariously and statutorily liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- from the respondent.

RESPONDENT’S CASE

4. The respondent – Transport Corporation filed a counter denying all the petition averments contending that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The respondent contended that the petitioner was a minor and did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It is the petitioner who rashly and negligently rode his vehicle and dashed against the respondent’s bus. The compensation claimed is excessive. Further, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties viz., owner and insurer of the motorcycle which the petitioner was riding. Accordingly, the respondent sought for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

TRIBUNAL

5. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he examined himself as P.W.1, one Harinath, Special Sub-Inspector, A4, Anna Nagar Police Station, was examined as P.W.2, one Senthil Kumar, Medical Record Officer, Billroth Hospital, was examined as P.W.3 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.14 were marked. On the side of the respondent, Jayaprakash, driver of the bus involved in the accident, was examined as R.W.1 and no exhibit was marked.

6. The Tribunal, based on Ex-P.1 – First Information Report (FIR), Ex-P11 - Final Report, and oral evidence of P.W.1, concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's driver. Regarding the quantum, the Tribunal, considering Ex-P.6 – Disability Certificate issued by the Department of Orthopaedics, Government Kilpauk Medical College, as well as Ex-P.7 - Disability Certificate issued by the Department for the Welfare of the Differently Abled, concluded that the petitioner suffered 70% functional disability. Further, the Tribunal, fixed a sum of Rs.8,000/- as notional income of the petitioner and awarded a sum of Rs.24,36,000/- as compensation to him as tabulated hereunder:-