Prabhu vs Murali
2021 Latest Caselaw 10083 Mad

                                                                             C.M.A.No.3569 of 2019

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 20.04.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

                                             C.M.A.No.3569 of 2019
                 Prabhu,
                 S/o.Ramadoss                                          ... Appellant

                                                         Vs.
                 1.Murali
                 2.V.Ashok Kumar
                 3.Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd.,
                   23, Spur Tank Road, Chennai.
                 (Respondents 1 and 2 set exparte by the
                 Lower Court and hence notice to R1 R2
                 is not necessary)                                     ... Respondents

                       Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                 Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 25.04.2012 made in
                 M.A.C.T.O.P.No.194 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
                 Tribunal (District Judge) at Karaikal.

                                   For Appellant   : Mr.Vasudevan
                                                     for Mr.T.Susindran
                                   For Respondents :
                                   For R1 & R2     : set exparte
                                   For R3          : Ms.Harini
                                                     for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates

                                                     JUDGMENT

The claimant is the appellant in this appeal. This appeal has been

filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 1 of 6 C.M.A.No.3569 of 2019

awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge,

Karaikal in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.194 of 2010 by its Judgment and decree

dated 25.04.2012.

2. By the impugned Judgement and decree, the Tribunal has

awarded total compensation of Rs.1,01,075/- which is detailed below:-

Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal

1. For pain and sufferings Rs.25,000/-

2. For extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-

3. For permanent disability Rs.35,000/-

4. For medical expenses Rs.31,075/-

5. For loss of income for two Rs. 5,000/-

months Total Rs.1,01,075/-

3. In this appeal, the appellant/claimant seeks for enhancement of

compensation on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have awarded

higher compensation towards permanent disability.

4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurance company

submits that the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal is

well-reasoned and requires no interference and therefore prays for

dismissal of the appeal.

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 2 of 6 C.M.A.No.3569 of 2019

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the 3rd

respondent. I have perused the impugned Judgment and decree and the

exhibits marked before the Tribunal.

6. In my view, the Tribunal has wrongly expressed permanent

disability based on the disability certificate dated 08.02.2012 which was

marked as Ex.P.8 inasmuch as the injury suffered by the

appellant/claimant is confined to fracture on his right thigh and shaft.

This is merely an injury which would have healed over a period of time

like any other injury. Be that as it may, the amount awarded towards

permanent disability appears to be reasonable and therefore I am not

inclined to disturb the same. The Tribunal has however awarded a sum

of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income. The appellant/claimant has also

filed Ex.P.10-Salary Certificate which indicates that he was earning a

sum of Rs.10,000/- per month.

7. In my view, the amount of Rs.10,000/- as monthly salary of a

driver appears to be reasonable. The injury namely fracture of Right

Thigh and the Shaft would have certainly put a driver out of action

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 3 of 6 C.M.A.No.3569 of 2019

atleast for a period of six months. Therefore, the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is

enhanced to Rs.60,000/- i.e., Rs.10,000/- x 6 = Rs.60,000/-.

8. In the result, the amount of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,56,075/- by adding another sum of

Rs.55,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation payable by the 3rd

respondent/Insurance Company is determined as Rs.1,56,075/-

(Rs.1,01,075/- + Rs.55,000/- (Rs.60,000/- - Rs.5,000/-)).

9. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is therefore directed to

deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,56,075/- together

with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the claim

petition till the date of such deposit, less any amount already deposited

by it, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this Judgment.

10. On such deposit being made by the 3rd respondent/Insurance

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 4 of 6 C.M.A.No.3569 of 2019

Company, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same

together with interest accrued thereon, less any amount already

withdrawn in the same proportion as was ordered by the Tribunal.

11. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed with the

above observations and directions. No costs.

20.04.2021

arb Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

To:

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Karaikal.

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madras High Court.

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 5 of 6 C.M.A.No.3569 of 2019

C.SARAVANAN, J.

arb

C.M.A.No.3569 of 2019

20.04.2021

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 6 of 6