Madras High Court
G.Raja Ganapathy vs S.Balakrishnan on 19 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.3375 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.M.A.No.3375 of 2011
G.Raja Ganapathy ... Appellant
Versus
1.S.Balakrishnan
(R1 set exparte before trial court)
2.United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.14, Whites Road
Sudarsan Building, II Floor,
Chennai – 600 014 ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2011 made in
MACT.OP.No.1381 of 2007 on the file of the VI Small Causes Court
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai
For Appellant : Mr.R.Kalai Arasan
For Respondents
For R2 : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan
R1 : Exparte
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3375 of 2011
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been laid as against the judgment and decree dated
06.07.2011 made in MACT.OP.No.1381 of 2007 on the file of the VI Small
Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai thereby awarded
the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,97,375/-.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the claimant is that on 17.02.2007, when the
petitioner was riding his motorcycle from Nungambakkam to Parrys, the car
which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the first respondent and
dashed against the claimant, due to which he fell down and sustained head
injuries, facial injuries, fracture right temporal bone, left frontal contusion
brain and multiple injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government
Royapettah Hospital and thereafter referred to Government General
Hospital, Chennai. He was admitted as inpatient from 17.02.2007 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3375 of 2011
23.02.2007. Due to the said accident, he suffered loss of hearing power and
he was fixed hearing aid. The disability caused to the petitioner in respect of
40% on his right ear and 20% on his left ear. In respect of head injuries are
concerned, he sustained 40% partial and permanent disability, therefore,
sustained 100% disability and he cannot work as Clerk. He was aged about
24 years at the time of accident and he was working as Clerk in a private
transport company. Therefore, he claimed compensation at Rs.6,00,000/-.
4. Resisting the same, the second respondent filed counter stating
that only on the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner's vehicle, the
accident took place and as such the second respondent is not at all liable to
pay any compensation. The disability assessed by the doctor is also very
high and there is no permanent disability as stated by the petitioner.
5. On the side of the claimant, examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and
marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On the side of the respondents neither oral nor
documentary evidence was let in. On the basis of the evidence available on
records and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3375 of 2011
appearing on either side, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,97,375/- as
payable by the respondents. Being not satisfied with the quantum of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant came forward with the
present appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that
PW2 and 3 are the doctors who assessed disability were examined and
assessed disability on the right ear of the petitioner at 40% and 20% on the
left ear. Insofar head injuries are concerned, the petitioner was assessed 40%
partial and permanent disability. The petitioner was working as Clerk and
now could not able to work as Clerk. Therefore, there is earning loss and
without considering the same, the Tribunal had taken into consideration
only partial disability and awarded very less compensation.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent would contend that it is a case of injury and the Tribunal rightly
awarded a sum of Rs.1,97,375/- and as such the claimant is not at all
entitled for any enhanced compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3375 of 2011
8. Heard Mr.R.Kalai Arasan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent.
9. On 17.02.2007, when the petitioner was riding his motorcyle
from Nungambakkam to Parrys, Chennai, the first respondent had driven his
car in a rash and negligent manner behind the motorcycle and dashed
against the motorcycle. Therefore, the petitioner fell down and sustained
injuries on his head. The doctors who assessed the petitioner were examined
as PW2 and 3. PW2 deposed that the disability caused to the petitioner
regarding injuries sustained by him as 20% on his left ear, in respect of right
ear, 40%. Therefore, the petitioner is suffering 60% partial and permanent
disability. PW3 assessed the disability of the petitioner in respect of head
injury at 40%. For post head injury and headache migraine, sinusitis,
refractory error 10%, Post traumatic vertigo 10%, Anticonvulsant therapy
10% and facial LMN Paralyses 10% in total 40%, PW3 is not the doctor
who treated the petitioner. Further, there is no evidence to the effect that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3375 of 2011
injuries sustained by the petitioner totally disabled him from doing his work
as he did prior to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded
compensation for the injuries sustained by him at Rs.1,40,000/-.
10. Insofar as other heads are concerned, the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- for his loss of earning for two months,
Rs.5,000/- for transport expenses, Rs.5,000/- for extra nourishment,
Rs.1,000/- for damages to clothes, Rs.1,371/- for his medical expenses,
Rs.3,000/- attender charges and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony. Under the
head of non-pecuniary loss, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for
pain and sufferings and Rs.1,40,000/- for disability sustained by him
assessed on the injuries. Therefore this Court finds no infirmity or
irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal. As such, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded compensation of Rs.1,97,375/-
11. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No
Costs. The respondents are directed to deposit the total compensation of
Rs.1,97,375/- with accrued interest and costs as determined at by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3375 of 2011
Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited. On such
deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw in accordance with
law, less the amount if any already withdrawn by them.
19.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/no
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3375 of 2011
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1. The VI Small Causes Court,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chennai
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
C.M.A.No.3375 of 2011
19.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
