Madras High Court

Anthonisamy vs The Managing Director on 29 April, 2021

                                                                                      C.M.A.No.2106 of 2018


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 29.04.2021

                                                      CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

                                                C.M.A.No.2106 of 2018

                  Anthonisamy                                                ...Appellant
                                                           Vs
                  The Managing Director,
                  Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
                  Villupuram Division, No.3/137, Salamedu,
                  Vazhuthareddy & Psot, Villupuram District and Taluk,
                  Tamil Nadu.                                                ... Respondent

                  Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                  Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 24.10.2017 made in
                  M.C.O.P.No.725 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal,
                  Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry.
                                         For Appellant    : Mr.T.Ananthasekar
                                         For Respondent   : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish

                                                     JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and

decree dated 24.10.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.725 of 2015 on the file of the

Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2106 of 2018

2.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.725 of 2015 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry. He filed

the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place

on 21.06.2015.

3.The facts of the case is that, on 21.06.2015 at about 00.15 hrs, when the

appellant was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing

Registration No.PY – 01 CE 7734, which was driven by one Murugan, slowly

by keeping extreme left from north to south direction with due care, a bus

bearing Registration No.32 N 3405 belong to the respondent was driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle and

thereby caused accident. Due to which the appellant sustained multiple

grievous injuries. Thereafter, the appellant was admitted in hospital and took

treatment as inpatient for a period of 1 month and till date he was taking

treatment as outpatient. Therefore, the claimant filed a claim petition before the

Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries

sustained by him.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2106 of 2018

4.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by

the driver of the respondent and directed the respondent-Transport Corporation

to pay a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation to the appellant.

5.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the

appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- towards permanent disability. The

claimant has sustained severe injury, therefore he admitted in the hospital and

took continuous treatment for more than three months. The Medical Board

assessed the disability of the appellant as 65%. The Tribunal has taken a sum of

Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability and awarded a sum of Rs.1,95,000/-

towards disability. The appellant has suffered multiple grievous injuries and the

amount awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability is very low. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2106 of 2018

Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation on the basis of percentage

method and the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier method. It is a fit

case to apply multiplier method. The avocation of the claimant at the time of

accident was carpenter. Therefore, he earned a sum of Rs.700/- per day.

However, no document has been produced. Hence, he prayed to re-determined

the award of the Tribunal by applying multiplier method.

7.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the court has

awarded a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- towards permanent disability. The Medical

Board assessed 65% permanent partial disability. The Tribunal has also taken

the 65% disability and awarded compensation. Thus, there is no error in this

aspect. Therefore, he submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal may be

confirmed.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent

and perused the materials available on record.

9.Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant was 28 years

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2106 of 2018

old at the time of accident. The avocation of the claimant was Carpenter. The

claim was made that the claimant earned a sum of Rs.700/- per day before the

accident. However, no proof was produced to substantiate the same. The

discharge summary was marked as Ex.P7 and Outpatient case record of the

appellant was marked as Ex.P14. A perusal of these documents shows that the

injured has taken treatment from 2015 to 2017. A perusal of the Ex.P7-

Discharge slip shows that the appellant has suffered Head injury, cut injury over

occipital region, cut injury over left side below eye, crush injury over left leg,

fracture of frontal bone, fracture of temporal bone, fracture of occipital bone,

complex zygomatic fracture on the left side along with co fracture discontinuity

in the infra border of the orbit present, fracture of coronoid process on the left

side, fracture of mandible, fracture of left femur, fracture of left ankle,

contusion over shoulder, swelling wound over forehead, sutured wound over

left eyebrow, contusion over right thigh, deep lacerated wound over left hand,

severe pain over right shoulder, facial injuries and eye affected, severe pain

over back, all injuries are grievous in nature with permanent disability.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2106 of 2018

10.The Medical Board who examined the appellant assessed the disability

at 65%, which was marked as Ex.X1. The Tribunal has taken the entire

disability as 65% and awarded compensation by fixing a sum of Rs.3,000/- per

percentage. However, the Tribunal has not applied multiplier method.

11.In the present case, the injury sustained by the appellant is

severe in nature. He sustained cut injury and fracture all over the body. A

perusal of Ex.P7/the discharge slip would show that the appellant was

continuously taken treatment from 21.06.2015 to 20.07.15 thereafter from time

to time upto the year of 2017. This Court also perused the out patient card

marked as Ex.P14, which shows that the appellant has been continuously taking

treatment, it also shows that injuries are very severe in nature. In such

circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier method for

awarding compensation towards permanent disability. However, it has failed to

do so. This is a fit case to apply multiplier method for awarding compensation.

The avocation of the appellant at the time of accident was carpenter. The claim

was made on the side of the appellant that he was earning a sum of Rs.700/- per

day. However, no proof was produced to substantiate the same. Therefore, this

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2106 of 2018

Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the appellant that he was

earning a sum of Rs.700/- per day. In the present case the accident is of the

year 2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq vs. Divisional

Manager, United India Insurance reported in 2014 1 TNMAC 459 (SC)

awarded a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month for the vegetable vendor for the

accident occurred in the year 2008. By following the same yardstick,

considering the increase in cost of living and considering the facts and

circumstance of the present case, this Court is inclined to fix the notional

income of the injured appellant as a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. As held by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Ins. Co. v. Pranay Sethi &

others reported in 2017(2)TNMAC 609 (SC), when the multiplier method is

applied, the Court supposed to have add certain percentage of amount towards

future prospect. As held by in the case of Pranay Sethi stated supra, the

Tribunal ought to have added 40% towards future prospect for the age group

below 40. The multiplier applicable for the present case is 17. The Medical

Board who examined the appellant assessed the disability at 65%. The Tribunal

has taken the entire disability as 65% and awarded compensation. Since this

Court applied multiplier method, this Court is inclined to take functional

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2106 of 2018

disability as 35%. Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards

permanent disability is re-determined as follows:

Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/- ( 40% of Rs.8,000/-) x 12 x 17 x 35% =

Rs.7,99,680/-.

12.The amount awarded by the Tribunal under all the other heads are just

and reasonable and the same is confirmed. Hence, the amount awarded by the

Tribunal is modified as follows:

S.No Description Amount awarded Amount awarded by Tribunal by this Court (Rs) (Rs)

1. Pain and Sufferings 40,000 40,000

2. Medical Expense 5,000 5,000

3. Rich and nutritious Food 5,000 5,000

4. Attendee Charges 5,000 5,000

5. Transport Expenses 10,000 10,000

6. Loss of Income 15,000 15,000

7. Permanent Disability/Loss of 1,95,000 7,99,680 Earning Power Total 2,75,000 8,79,680

13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2106 of 2018

compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,75,000/- is hereby enhanced to

Rs.8,79,680/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realisation. The appellant/claimant shall pay necessary

Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. The respondent/Transport

Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount along with

interest and costs now determined by this Court, less the amount already

deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw

the entire award amount, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any,

already withdrawn. The Tribunal is directed to transfer the entire award amount

to the appellant by way of RTGS, within a period of three weeks from the

deposit or from the date of receipt of the Bank details obtained for the claimant

or application made by the appellant for withdrawal, whichever is later. No

costs.