Madras High Court
Anjalai vs Ashok Kumar on 26 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.546 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.546 of 2016
Anjalai ... Appellant
..Vs..
1.Ashok Kumar
2.New India Assurance Company Ltd,
No.45, Moore Street,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.08.2015 and
made in MACTOP.NO.2454 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal and Special Sub Judge-II to deal with MCOP.cases,
Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja
For Respondent 2 : Mr.G.Udaya Sankar
R1-set exparte
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.546 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned award dated
27.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub
Judge-II dealing with MCOP.cases) in MCOP.No.2454 of 2012.
2. Heard Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel for the Appellant
and Mr.G.Udaya Sankar, learned counsel for the second respondent. Since
the first respondent was set exparte before the Tribunal, notice to the first
respondent is dispensed with by this Court.
3. The Appellant/claimant unsatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal has preferred this appeal seeking for
enhancement of compensation.
4. The Tribunal under the impugned award has directed the second
respondent Insurance Company to pay the Appellant/claimant a
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.546 of 2016
compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- together with interest and costs for the
injuries sustained by him as a result of an accident caused by a vehicle
owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent as
detailed hereunder:
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
For 10% partial and permanent 30,000/-
disability at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per
percentage
Pain and sufferings 30,000/-
Transportation charges 10,000/-
Extra Nourishment 6,000/-
Cost of Attender 5,000/-
Loss of income for 2 months 13,000/-
Loss of Amenities 30,000/-
Damage to cloth & other articles 1,000/-
Total 1,25,000/-
5. Before the Tribunal, the Appellant/claimant has filed eight
documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and two witnesses were
examined on her side namely the Appellant/claimant herself as PW1and the
Doctor who examined her as PW2. On the side of the second respondent
Insurance Company neither any document was filed nor any witness
examined, before the Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal under the impugned Award has observed based on
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.546 of 2016
the exhibits marked on the side of the Appellant/claimant that the
Appellant/claimant has only taken conservative treatment. However, the
head injury sustained by the Appellant/claimant has not been disputed by
the second respondent as seen from the evidence available on record. With
regard to the fracture of ulna bone is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly
rejected the said disability as the Appellant/claimant has not established her
case, before the Tribunal that she sustained Alna bone fracture which
entitled her to claim 25% disability for the same. However, as seen from the
evidence available on record, it is an admitted fact that the
Appellant/claimant has sustained frontal lobe brain contusion, due to the
injuries sustained by her as a result of the accident. The doctor, PW2 has
assessed the disability of the Appellant/claimant for the frontal lobe brain
contusion as a result of the head injury caused to her due to the accident at
35%. However, the Tribunal after observing that the Appellant/claimant was
fully recovered after taking treatment in the year 2010 itself, has reduced her
disability to 10%. This Court is of the considered view that the reduction of
disability for the frontal lobe brain contusion with Sub Dural Hemorrhage
(SDH) by the Tribunal from 35% fixed by the Doctor to 10% is low and it
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.546 of 2016
has to be enhanced. After giving due consideration to the materials and
evidence available on record as well as the referral slip issued for taking CT
Scan (Ex.P3), Discharge Summary issued by the Government Hospital,
Puducherry (Ex.P4), Prescription issued on 22.06.2010 (Ex.P5), O.P.chits
and Slips (Ex.P6), Disability Certificate (Ex.P7) and X-Ray (Ex.P8), this
Court is of the considered view that the disability towards head injury for the
Appellant/claimant has to be enhanced to 25% from 10% fixed by the
Tribunal. Accordingly, the same is enhanced to 25% and therefore, the
disability compensation awarded by the Tribunal is accordingly, enhanced to
Rs.75,000/- from Rs.30,000/- fixed by the Tribunal calculated at Rs.3,000/-
per percentage of disability for 25% disability suffered by the
Appellant/claimant on account of her head injury. Excepting for this
modification, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads of compensation cannot
be considered to be excessive as alleged by the second respondent Insurance
Company.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court enhances the compensation
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.546 of 2016
awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.1,70,000/- as detailed
hereunder:
Heads Amount Modified
Awarded by the Award
Tribunal Amount
(Rs.) (Rs.)
For partial and permanent 30,000/- 75,000/-
disability at the rate of (10% x 3000) (25% x 3000)
Rs.3,000/- per percentage
Pain and sufferings 30,000/- 30,000/-
Transportation charges 10,000/- 10,000/-
Extra Nourishment 6,000/- 6,000/-
Cost of Attender 5,000/- 5,000/-
Loss of income for 2 months 13,000/- 13,000/-
Loss of Amenities 30,000/- 30,000/-
Damage to cloth & other 1,000/- 1,000/-
articles
Total 1,25,000/- 1,70,000/-
8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed
and the Second Respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire amount awarded by this Court along with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim till the date of deposit and costs after deducting the
amount already deposited if any to the credit of MCOP.No.2454 of 2016
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall transfer the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.546 of 2016
amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No. 2454 of 2016 to the bank account
of the Appellant/claimant through RTGS within a period of one week
thereafter. No costs.
26.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
nl
To
1. TheSpecial Sub Judge-II dealing with MCOP cases, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.546 of 2016
C.M.A.No.546 of 2016
26.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
