C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
V.Perumal ... Appellant
Vs.
1. AVS Ready Mix Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Residing at Sy.No.27/1, Balagaranahaly, Hosur Road,
Anekal, Bangalore - 560 107.
2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, 2nd Floor,
Vijay Shopping Complex,
No.2/7-16, Bangalore Main Road, Zuzuvadi,
Hosur. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against decree and judgment dated 19.02.2019 made in
M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Special Sub Judge), Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Rameshvel
For Respondents : Ms.Sree Vidhya - for R2
R1- Not ready in notice
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The claimant aggrieved by the Award fixing 25% of the liability on the Appellant/ claimant and on the ground that quantum awarded is very meagre, is before this Court.
2. The Appellant/ claimant had filed M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.24,30,000/-, which was restricted to a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident involving his lorry and the bus belonging to the first respondent herein.
3. It was the Appellant's / claimant's case that he was driving the lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-31-B-3142 on 23.02.2016 and since the lorry had developed engine problem while going up the Hosur Flyover, he had stopped the lorry on the Highways to repair the same. When he had got down to repair the said problem in the engine, the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-51-9140 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.278 of 2022 the Appellant's/ Claimant's lorry on its rear, thereby causing the accident. As a result of the impact, the Appellant/ claimant had sustained grievous injuries and fractures in his head and face and he got other injuries, which has been detailed in the claim petition. He would submit that the accident had occurred only on account of the negligence of the driver of the first respondent's lorry. Therefore, he had filed the claim petition claiming compensation.
4. The counter filed by the second respondent/ Insurance Company with which the first respondent lorry was insured was that the Appellant/ claimant had not followed the basic road safety Regulations, when he had stopped to repair the lorry. He had not put up the warning sign viz., reflectors, as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Appellant / claimant had parked his lorry right on the middle of the road and the parking lights of the vehicle were not switched on. The second respondent/ Insurance Company, therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. The second respondent/ Insurance Company has not challenged the Award.
5. The Tribunal had apportioned the liability on both the vehicles. The Appellant / claimant was apportioned a contributory negligence of 25% 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.278 of 2022 and ultimately an Award for a sum of Rs.6,56,760/- with 7.5% interest was awarded. Challenging the same being very meagre, the Appellant/ claimant is before this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. The Appellant/ claimant has argued both on the ground of liability as well as negligence. As regards the first ground, namely liability, the Appellant/ claimant, as P.W.1, has categorically admitted that except for the parking lights, no other signs were put up to indicate to the other motorists that there was a stationary vehicle on the road undergoing repairs. The accident had taken place at 22.15 hrs. P.W.1 in his counter statement has admitted the fact that he had not put up the warning boards around the lorry and had only put up the parking lights. Therefore, there is a breach of the conditions of the Policy as well as the provisions of the Motor vehicles Act.
8. The Tribunal had rightly held that the Appellant/ claimant to be contributed to the negligence to an extent of 25%. The Tribunal had fixed 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.278 of 2022 only a notional income of Rs.8,000/-. The accident had taken place on 23.02.2016. The notional income in such cases have to be enhanced. Accordingly, the notional income is increased to an extent of Rs.12,000/-. However, taking into account the age of the Appellant/ claimant, no amounts have to be granted under the head of future prospects. Further, the disability has been assessed at 30%. In such circumstances, the loss of income is re-worked as Rs.3,02,400/- [Rs.12,000/- x 12 x 7 x 30%]. The amounts granted under the head of Transport, Nutrition and Attender charges are very low and the same is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the modified compensation is as follows:
Heads Awarded Awarded by
by the this Court
Tribunal (Amount in
(Amount Rs.)
in Rs.)
Loss of Income 2,21,760 3,02,400
Medical Expenses 3,60,000 3,60,000
Transport, Nutrition and Attender 15,000 30,000
Charges
Pain and Sufferings 30,000 30,000
Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment of life 30,000 30,000
Total 6,56,760 7,52,400
9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award of the Tribunal is modified, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.6,56,760/- to Rs.7,52,400/-. The second respondent-Insurance Company 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.278 of 2022 is directed to deposit 75% of the said amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2017 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Appellant / claimant shall forfeit the remaining 25% of the award amount due to his own contributory negligence. On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with accrued interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The claimant is directed to pay the necessary Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal below shall not disburse the enhanced amount till such time the certified copy showing proof of payment of Court fee has been produced by the claimant. In other respects, the Award of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.
05.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ab
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Judge), Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.278 of 2022 P.T. ASHA, J, ab C.M.A. No.278 of 2022 05.04.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis