Madras High Court
Alphonsa Vincent vs K.A.Dayanandini on 21 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.2475 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.M.A.No.2475 of 2012
Alphonsa Vincent ... Appellant
Versus
1.K.A.Dayanandini
(R1 was set exparte in the trial court)
2.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.251, I Floor, Arcot Road,
Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026 ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2010 made in
MACT.OP.No.1622 of 2008 on the file of the III Judge, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court), Chennai
For Appellant : Mrs.V.Suguna
for M/s.C and K Law Firm
For Respondents
For R2 : Mr.M.J.Vijaya Raghavan
R1 : Notice unserved
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2475 of 2012
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been laid as against the judgment and decree dated
28.10.2010 made in MACT.OP.No.1622 of 2008 on the file of the III Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court), Chennai, thereby
awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,15,000/-.
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 27.02.2008, when the
petitioner was standing in front of the Kedhar Hospital, Mukalivakkam
Main Road, the first respondent drove his two wheeler in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the petitioner, due to which the petitioner
sustained fracture on his right leg. He also sustained severe head injury,
abrasions over left hand, lacerated injuries over right leg and multiple
injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was taken to Kedhar Hospital
and admitted as inpatient. He had taken treatment till 01.03.2008. His
disablement was assessed at 50%. Therefore, the claimant filed claim
petition seeking compensation at Rs.6,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2475 of 2012
4. Resisting the same, the second respondent filed counter stating
that the accident occurred only on the rash and negligence of the claimant
and not on the negligent driving of the first respondent. Therefore, the
second respondent is not at all liable to pay any compensation as claimed by
the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. On the side of the claimant, examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the respondents neither oral nor
documentary evidence was let in. 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.1,15,000/- as
compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant came forward with the
present appeal for enhancement of the award.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that
the petitioner sustained fracture on his both bone on right leg and also head
injury. Doctor was examined as PW2 and he assessed the claimant at 50%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2475 of 2012
partial permanent disability. Even then, the Tribunal without any reason,
reduced the disablement to 35% and only awarded Rs.42,000/-. Therefore,
he prayed for enhancement of the award amount.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent would contend that the disability sustained by the petitioner is
only partial and because of his disablement, his avocation was never
disturbed and he continues his job. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded
the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
8. Heard Mrs.V.Suguna, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant / claimant and Mr.M.J.Vijaya Raghavan, learned counsel
appearing for the second respondent herein.
9. The claimant met with an accident on the rash and negligent
driving of the two wheeler by the first respondent on 27.02.2008. Due to the
said accident, the claimant sustained both bone fracture over right leg,
severe head injury, abrasions over left hand, lacerated injuries over right leg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2475 of 2012
and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was taken to Kedhar
Hospital and treated as inpatient. He had undergone surgery on his right leg
and he also incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.42,000/-. PW2
assessed disablement of the petitioner at 50%. However, it is only partial
permanent disability and as such the Tribunal rightly had taken as 35%.
However, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.1,200/- per percentage. As
such this Court is inclined to enhance the same by granting Rs.2,000/- per
percentage.
10. Accordingly the compensation awarded by the Tribunal stands
modified as under :-
Sl. Head Amount awarded by Amount awarded by
No. the Tribunal this Court
1 Loss of income for two Rs.6,000/- Rs.6,000/-
months at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- per month
2 Transportation as per Rs.1,500/- Rs.1,500/-
Ex.P6
3 Extra nourishment Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/-
4 Damage to clothes Rs.500/- Rs.500/-
5 Medical expenses Rs.42,000/- Rs.42,000/-
6 Cost of attendant Rs.3,000/- Rs.3,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2475 of 2012
Sl. Head Amount awarded by Amount awarded by
No. the Tribunal this Court
7 Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
8 Disability of 35% at the Rs.42,000/- Rs.70,000/-
rate of Rs.1,200/- per
disability
Total Rs.1,15,000/- Rs.1,43,000
11. In the result the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed
as follows:-
(i) The award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,15,000/-
to Rs.1,43,000/-.
(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 herein / insurance company is directed
to deposit the award amount, less the amount, if any, already deposited,
along with accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this Judgment.
(iv) On such deposit, the appellant / claimant is permitted to
withdraw the amount awarded as above by filing proper application before
the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2475 of 2012
(v) The appellant/claimant is not entitled to any interest for the
condoned delay (default) period, if any.
(vi) The appellant / 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
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2475 of 2012
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The III Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Small Causes Court, Chennai
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
C.M.A.No.2475 of 2012
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
