Madras High Court
T.K.Ganapathy vs K.Selvaganesan on 9 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.877 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.877 of 2020
(Through Video Conferencing)
T.K.Ganapathy ... Appellant
vs.
1.K.Selvaganesan
2.IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
No.128, IV Floor, IFFCO Bhavan,
Habibullah Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 108. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.03.2019
made in M.C.O.P.No.4051 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (II Additional Subordinate Judge) Cuddalore.
For appellant : Mr.S.Udayakumar
For 2nd Respondent : M/s.Saraswathi for
Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 1 of 8
C.M.A.No.877 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The claimant is the appellant in this appeal and is aggrieved by the
impugned Judgment and decree dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional Subordinate Judge) Cuddalore in
M.C.O.P.No.4051 of 2015.
2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- as compensation together with interest at
7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment,
to the appellant/claimant.
3. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the appellant/claimant has
filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation.
4. The brief facts of the case is that on 26.09.2015 at about 2.15
hours when the appellant was driving in a Mahindra Logan Car bearing
Reg.No.TN.01.AD.3859 along with others near Rajiv Gandhi
Engineering College, Cuddalore Main Road, the 1st respondent's Omni
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 2 of 8
C.M.A.No.877 of 2020
Bus bearing Reg.No.TN.69.AX.7786 insured with the 2nd respondent
insurance company, came from the opposite direction allegedly, driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and
dashed against the appellant's car. As a result of the collision, the
appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries.
5. Under these circumstances, a claim petition was filed for
compensation by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal. After
considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded the
aforesaid compensation of Rs.8,75,000/- along with interest and cost .
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal
ought to have adopted proper multiplier while fixing the quantum of
compensation. It is submitted that the appellant was working as a lab
technician in Annamalai University and he was earning a sum of
Rs.35,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has not considered the
loss of income during the treatment period. The appellant had undergone
treatment in the various hospitals as an inpatient for the period from
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 3 of 8
C.M.A.No.877 of 2020
26.09.2015 to 12.10.2015. As per Ex.P.29- Accident Register, the
injury sustained by the appellant is abrasion on 10 x 5 c.m. chin, abrasion
in nose and abrasion in the left forearms, right wrist that the injury
sustained by the appellant are grievous in nature.
7. He further submits that the Medical Board has assessed the
disability of the appellant as 66%. The Tribunal ought to have adopted
multiplier method to award compensation towards loss of earning
capacity. The appellant has taken treatment as in-patient in the hospital
for seventeen days. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
towards attendant charges. The appellant is still taking physiotherapy
treatment for the injuries and the Tribunal ought to have awarded
compensation towards future medical expenses. The amounts awarded
by the Tribunal under different heads are meagre and prayed for
enhancement of compensation.
8. Defending the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 4 of 8
C.M.A.No.877 of 2020
Tribunal and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance
Company submits that the impugned Judgment and decree is well
reasoned and requires no interference.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the connected
C.M.A.No.301 of 2020 dated 25.02.2020 in S.Lakshmi vs.
K.Selvaganesan and another, the Court has considered a sum of
Rs.4,000/- per percentage for awarding compensation towards disability
at 20%.
10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent
Insurance Company and I have also perused the evidence on record and
the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Tribunal.
11. Though Ex.C.4 disability certificate indicates that there is a
permanent disability of the appellant as 66%, the evidence on record
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 5 of 8
C.M.A.No.877 of 2020
including the deposition of the appellant indicates that the appellant had
not suffered any functional disability on behalf of the injury.
12. However, considering the nature of injury suffered by the
appellant and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,95,000/- towards
medical expenses, this Court is of the view that the same is confirmed due
to injury suffered by the appellant on account of the accident.
13. In view of the same, some amount should be awarded
towards the injury suffered at Rs.4,000/- per percentage of disability.
Therefore, a sum of Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.4,000/- X 66%) is awarded
towards injuries suffered by the appellant. The amount awarded a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering is high and is therefore
reduced to Rs.60,000/-.
14. Considering the fact that the appellant has undergone
treatment for considerably long period, this Court is inclined to award a
sum of Rs.40,000/- towards attender charges. Therefore, the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 6 of 8
C.M.A.No.877 of 2020
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-quantified as follows:
Award
confirmed or
Amount awarded Amount awarded enhanced or
S.No Heads by the Tribunal by this Court granted or
reduced
.
1 Transport to hospital Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Confirmed
2 Special Diet Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Confirmed
3 Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 60,000/- Reduced
4 Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Confirmed
5 Medical bills Rs 6,95,000- Rs.6,95,000/- Confirmed
6 InjuryRs.(4,000/ x - Rs.2,64,000/- Granted
66%)
7 Attender charges - Rs. 40,000/- Granted
Total Rs.8,75,000/- Rs. 11,39,000/- Enhanced by a
Rounded off to sum of
Rs.11,40,000/- Rs.2,65,000/-
15. Therefore, the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the re-quantified amount of compensation of Rs.11,40,000/-
together with interest at 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date
of such deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.4051 of 2015 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional Subordinate Judge)
Cuddalore, less any amount already deposited, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 7 of 8
C.M.A.No.877 of 2020
C.SARAVANAN,J.
kkd
16. On such deposit, the appellant /claimant is permitted to
withdraw the same together with interest, less any amount already
withdrawn, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal.
17. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed
with the above observations. No cost.
09.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kkd
To:-
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(II Additional Subordinate Judge) Cuddalore.
C.M.A.No.877 of 2020
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 8 of 8
