Madras High Court
Usha vs D.Harikrishnan on 21 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.1227 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.M.A.No.1227 of 2014
Usha ... Appellant
Versus
1. D.Harikrishnan
2. The Cholamandalam MS
General Insurance Co. Lt.,
Dare House, 2nd Floor,
N.S.C.Bose Road,
Chennai - 1. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 03.04.2012 made in
M.C.O.P.No.80 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Prasanna
For Mr.M.Sriram
For Respondents
For R1 : Not ready in notice
For R2 : Mr.E.Rajadurai
For Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1227 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This appeal is laid as against the judgment and decree dated
03.04.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Krishnagiri, in M.C.O.P.No.80 of 2010, thereby awarded the
compensation to the tune of Rs.76,311/-
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the claimant is that on 31.08.2007, when the
claimant was travelling as pillion rider in a two wheeler, the lorry belonged
to the first respondent was driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver
and dashed against the two wheeler and caused accident. Due to the
accident the claimant sustained head injury and other multiple injuries all
over her body. Hence she filed claim petition seeking compensation at
Rs.5,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1227 of 2014
4. Resisting the same, the second respondent filed counter stating
that the petition itself is not maintainable, since no fault on the part of the
driver who drove the lorry belonged to the first respondent. The accident
took place only on the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor
cycle. The claim of the claimant is also very high, excessive, exorbitant and
exaggerated. Therefore, the second respondent is not at all liable to pay any
compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. On the side of the claimant, she examined P.W.1 & P.W.2 and
marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8. On the side of the respondents, no one was
examined and no material has been marked as exhibit. On the basis of the
evidence available on records and also considering the submission made by
the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.76,311/- as compensation payable by the second respondent. Being not
satisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
claimant came forward with the present appeal for enhancement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1227 of 2014
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
submits that the petitioner sustained head injury and her disability was fixed
at 30%. Even though there was no contrary evidence, the Tribunal had taken
into account only 15% as disability. Insofar as the other heads also, the
Tribunal awarded very low compensation. The claimant is a tailor and she
earned more than Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to the head injuries sustained
by her, she lost her income for six months. Even then, the Tribunal had
taken a sum of Rs.3,000/- as monthly income and awarded a sum of
Rs.9,000/- as loss of income. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of the
award amount.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent contended that the claimant had never undergone any surgery
and she sustained only laceration wounds. She fell down only due the
negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle for which, the Tribunal
rightly awarded the compensation and therefore he prayed for dismissal of
the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1227 of 2014
8. Heard Mr.K.Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the
claimant and Mr.E.Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent.
9. On 31.08.2007, when the claimant was travelling as a pillion
rider in the motor cycle, the first respondent's driver had driven the lorry in
rash and negligent manner and caused accident. Due to which the claimant
sustained injuries in her head and injury to the right eye lid. She was treated
as inpatient and P.W.2 issued disability certificate assessing her disability at
30%. She was admitted in the hospital from 31.08.2007 to 08.09.2007 and
she was discharged on 08.09.2007. Admittedly no surgery had been
conducted and her disability is also partial in nature. Therefore, the tribunal
rightly awarded compensation for 15% of disability. Insofar as the other
heads are concerned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards
nutritious food and Rs.1,000/- under the head of attender's charges and the
same have to be enhanced. However, the interest on the award amount
granted by the Tribunal has to be reduced from 9% to 7.5% .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1227 of 2014
10. Accordingly the compensation awarded by the Tribunal stands
modified as under :-
Sl.No Heads Awarded by the Awarded by this
Tribunal Court
1 Temporary disability 30,000 30,000
2 Partial loss of income 9,000 9,000
3 Medical Bills 14,311 14,311
4 Nutritious food 2,000 5,000
5 Attenders expenses 1,000 5,000
6 Pain and suffering 10,000 10,000
7 Loss of amenities 10,000 10,000
Total 76,311 83,311
11. In the result the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed as
follows:-
(i) The award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.76,311/- to
Rs.83,311/-
(ii) The award amount will carry the interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit.
(iii) The second respondent is directed to deposit the award amount,
less the amount, if any, already deposited, along with accrued interest within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1227 of 2014
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.
(iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the
amount awarded by filing proper application before the Tribunal.
(v) The appellant/claimant is not entitled to any interest for the
condoned delay (default) period, if any.
(vi) The claimant shall pay requisite Court fee before the receipt of
the copy of the judgment for the enhanced compensation.
(vii) There shall be no order as to costs.
21.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/no
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1227 of 2014
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
1.The Special Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
C.M.A.No.1227 of 2014
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
