Madras High Court
Ramanichandran vs Balasubramanian on 19 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.3620 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.3620 of 2019
Ramanichandran ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Balasubramanian
2.The Managing Director,
State Express, Transport Corporation Ltd,
Having office No.2, Pallava Salai,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.06.2019
made in M.C.O.P.No.110 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, (District Judge), Karaikal.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondents : No appearance for R1
Mr.K.Karthiresan for R2
JUDGMENT
The claimant is the appellant in this appeal. In this appeal, the
appellant has questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Karaikal in
M.C.O.P.No.110 of 2015 by the impugned judgment and decree dated
18.06.2019.
http://www.judis.nic.in_________
Page No 1 of 7
C.M.A.No.3620 of 2019
2.By the impugned judgment and decree, the Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- as compensation under the following heads:-
For Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000
For Extra Nourishment Rs. 5,000
Compensation for pecuniary Rs.1,08,000
damages for partial disability
For medical expenses Rs. 84,000
For Transportation Rs. 10,000
For Attender charges (2 Rs. 8,000
months)
For loss of income for during Rs. 40,000
course of treatment four months
Total Rs.3,05,000
3.The appeal has been filed by the claimant stating that the
Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre compensation towards pecuniary
damages for partial disability by adopting Rs.3,000 per percentage. The
case of the appellant is that the disability certificate of the Medical Board
vide Ex.P.11 clearly brings out the functional disability at 27%.
Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have award apply multiplier as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar
and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343.
http://www.judis.nic.in_________
Page No 2 of 7
C.M.A.No.3620 of 2019
4.Defending the impugned judgment and decree, the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent/State Transport Corporation submits that
the Tribunal has awarded a just compensation and therefore he prays for
a dismissal of the appeal.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent
and also perused the impugned judgment and decree and the records
including exhibits which form the basis of the impugned judgment and
decree.
6.The Medical Report of the Medical Board has assessed 27%
disability. The appellant is said to be a Mill worker engaged in Carding
Operation. The aforesaid operation involves working in standing
position. Therefore, the permanent disability assessed by the Medical
Board cannot be questioned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar
Vs Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 has held that wherever
there is a functional disbaility on account of the permanent disability or
partial permanent disability multiplier has to be applied in Sanjay Verma
Vs. Haryana Roadway, (2014) 3 SCC 210 and V.Mekala Vs. Malathi
and Another, (2014) 11 SCC 178 and it has been held that there has to
http://www.judis.nic.in_________
Page No 3 of 7
C.M.A.No.3620 of 2019
be also further addition towards Future Prospectus wherever there is
permanent disability or partial permanent disability multiplier. The
Tribunal should have also determined the functional disability
considering the avocation of the appellant. This involves some amount
of guess work. The Tribunal had the best opportunity to make such guess
work as it had the benefit of seeing the appellant in person. This Court
therefore assesses the functional disability of the appellant at 15% to
arrive at a just compensation payable to the appellant.
7.Under these circumstances, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is re-computed as follows:-
Monthly Income of Rs. 5,07,114.00
the appellant Rs.13,416
+ 40% Future Prospectus
(13,416 + 40%) Rs. 5,366
-----------------
Rs.18,782
Annual Contribution
(18782 X 12) Rs.2,25,384
---------------
Multiplier X 15 Rs.33,80,760
Functional Disability
15% of
(Rs.33,80,760 x 15%) Rs. 5,07,114
http://www.judis.nic.in_________
Page No 4 of 7
C.M.A.No.3620 of 2019
Pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000.00
Extra Nourishment Rs. 5,000.00
Medical Expenses Rs. 84,000.00
Transportation Rs. 10,000.00
Attender charges Rs. 8,000.00
Total Rs. 6,39,114.00
8.The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is therefore directed to
deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.6,39,114/- 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.
9.On such deposit being made by the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw his share
together with interest accrued thereon, less any amount already
withdrawn in the same proportion as was ordered by the Tribunal.
http://www.judis.nic.in_________
Page No 5 of 7
C.M.A.No.3620 of 2019
10.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands Partly Allowed with the
above observations. No costs.
19.04.2021
jas
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To:
1.The Managing Director,
State Express, Transport Corporation Ltd,
Having office No.2, Pallava Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
District Judge, Karaikal.
3.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madras High Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in_________
Page No 6 of 7
C.M.A.No.3620 of 2019
C.SARAVANAN, J
jas
C.M.A.No.3620 of 2019
19.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in_________
Page No 7 of 7
