Madras High Court
Yoganandham vs Raja on 28 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.1489 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.1489 of 2021
Yoganandham ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Raja
S/o.Munusamy
(Notice for R1 may be dispensed with and
separate petition has been filed for the same)
2.The New India Assurance Company Limited,
39-C, Bye-Pass road, Dharmapuri – 636 701. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree order dated
27.07.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.379 of 2015, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge Court, Sankari.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel
For Respondents : Ms.A.Salomi for
Mr.D.Ramesh Babu for R2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the impugned
judgment and decree dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge Court, Sankari in
M.C.O.P.No.379 of 2015.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 6
C.M.A.No.1489 of 2021
2.By the impugned judgment and decree, the Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.58,00,000/- as compensation for the following injuries. The
Court has noted the fact that the above injuries have resulted in 100%
functional disability.
3.The present appeal is confined only to the issue of failure on the
part of the Tribunal to award any amount towards future prospects. In
this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Tribunal ought to have added another 40% towards future prospectus.
4.Defending the impugned judgment and decree, the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submits that the
Tribunal has awarded a just compensation under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and therefore submits that the award amount
may be confirmed by dismissing the present appeal. She further submits
that the appellant had already completed 31 years (30 years and 3
months) on the date of accident and therefore the Tribunal ought to have
considered the correct multiplier 16 as per the decision of the Hon'ble
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 6
C.M.A.No.1489 of 2021
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 12.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent
and also perused the impugned judgement and decree.
6.This case is of 100% permanent disability as per
Ex.P.24-Disability Certificate. The Tribunal has also concluded that
there is also 100% functional disability. The Tribunal has correctly
adopted the multiplier. However it failed to award any compensation
towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sanjay Varma Vs Haryana Roadways reported in (2014) 3
SCC 240. In my view, the appellant has made out a case for
enhancement of compensation. The appellant was aged about 30 years
and was working as a Technician in JPP Mills Private Limited,
Thiruchengode. Under these circumstances, there shall be a
enhancement of compensation at 40% towards future prospects on
Rs.33,15,500/- at Rs.13,26,000/-.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 6
C.M.A.No.1489 of 2021
7.In the result, the award amount of Rs.58,00,000/- enhanced by
another sum of Rs.13,26,000 has detailed below:-
Loss of Earning capacity Rs.46,41,000
Monthly notional Income
(Rs.16,250x12x17)
Rs.33,15,000
+ Future prospectus
40% Rs.13,26,000
----------------
Rs.46,41,000
Medical Expenses Rs.20,34,000
Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000
Transportation Rs. 1,00,000
Cost of Attender Rs. 50,000
Nutrition Food Rs. 75,000
Loss of property Rs. 1,000
Future Medical Expenses Rs. 25,000
Total Rs.71,26,000/-
8.The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is therefore directed to
deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.71,26,000/- 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 eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this Judgment.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 6
C.M.A.No.1489 of 2021
9.On such deposit being made by the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company, the appellant/ claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount
together with interest accrued thereon, less any amount already
withdrawn, if any, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal.
10.The appellant/claimant is directed to remit the deficit Court fee
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Only on such deposit of deficit court fee, the Registry shall
draft the decree of this Judgment. It is also made clear that there will
no interest for a period of 387 days being the delay in filing the present
appeal as per order dated in C.M.P.No.4300 of 2021.
11.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands Partly Allowed with the
above observations. No costs.
28.04.2021
jas
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Note:
After the appellant deposited the deficit court fee, the
Registry is directed to draft the decree.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 5 of 6
C.M.A.No.1489 of 2021
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jas
To:
1.The New India Assurance Company Limited,
39-C, Bye-Pass road, Dharmapuri – 636 701.
2.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
cum Subordinate Judge Court, Sankari.
3.The V.R.Section,
Madras High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.1489 of 2021
28.04.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 6 of 6
