Madras High Court
Govindan vs M/S.Sri Manakula Vinayaga ... on 15 April, 2021
CMA.No.3586 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.3586 of 2019
(Through Video Conferencing)
Govindan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.M/s.Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational Trust,
Rep by its Authorised Signatory
No.23 and 24, Mariamman Koil Street,
Madagadipet, Puducherry.
2.The Divisional Manager,
TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited,
No.10-A, Duraisamy Pillai Street,
West Tambaram, Chennai. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2018
passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1129 of 2016, on the file of the Additional Sub
Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Senthil Kumar
For R1 : No Appearance
For R2 : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.3586 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The Claimant is the appellant in this appeal. He is aggrieved by the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal in its judgment and decree dated
03.11.2018 in MACTOP.No.1129 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Puducherry. In this appeal, the
appellant seeks to claim enhancement of compensation.
2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.11,44,541/- under the following heads.
Permanent disability Rs.1,80,000/-
Pain and Sufferings Rs.2,00,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs.6,81,445/-
Loss of Income -----
Rich and Nutritious Food Rs.25,000/-
Attender Charges Rs.20,000/-
Transport Expenses Rs.38,096/-
Total Rs.11,44,541/-
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
appellant was an employee in Puducherry Tourism Development
Corporation. The appellant was not entitled to any pension on his
retirement and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.3586 of 2019
while awarding compensation to the appellant. It is further submitted that
the Tribunal has taken the same for awarding compensation though as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs
Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343. He further submitted that
the Tribunal ought to have award amounts towards loss of amenities, loss
of cloth and towards loss of expectations of life on account of the injuries
suffered by the claimant.
3. Defending the impugned judgment and decree, the learned counsel
for the 2nd respondent/Insurance company submits that the impugned
judgement and decree is well reasoned and requires no interference. He
further submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj
Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 is not
applicable to the facts of the case in as much as no functional disability
has arisen on account of injury. It is submitted that the petitioner was a
white collar employee and was working as an Assistant Manager with
Puducherry Tournism Development Corporation. It is further submitted
that the appellant suffered injury in left leg due to the accident that there is
no functional disability or loss of income for the Tribunal to award
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.3586 of 2019
compensation by applying multiplier.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the respondent.
5. Though the injury sustained by the appellant is grievous in nature
and as a result while there is the amputation of left leg as stated in the
impugned order, I am of the view, that the Tribunal ought to have awarded
compensation towards loss of amenities and towards compromise in the
quality of life.
6. Considering the above facts that the appellant aged about 54 years
at the time of accident and may not have any scope of undertaking any post
retiral job after retirement from the Puducherry Tourism Development
Corporation, I am inclined to enhance a compensation of Rs.11,44,541/-
awarded by the Tribunal by another sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards loss of
amenities and towards compromise in quality of life of the appellant. The
amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards other expenses appears
reasonable and are therefore confirmed. Thus, the total amount of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.3586 of 2019
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.21,44,541/- from
Rs.11,44,541/-.
7. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent insurance company is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.21,44,541/- (Rs.11,44,541 + Rs.10,00,000/-) together
with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the claim
petition till the date of payment to the credit of MACTOP.No.1129 of 2016
before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Additional Sub Court,
Puducherry, less any amount already deposited within a period of eight (8)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit
being made, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same together with
interest accrued thereon, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by
filing suitable application before the Tribunal.
9. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
15.04.2021
drl
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.3586 of 2019
To:
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Additional Sub Court,
Puducherry.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.3586 of 2019
C.SARAVANAN, J.
drl
C.M.A.No.3586 of 2019
15.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
