Madras High Court
Sikandar vs K.Senthil on 5 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.2074 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.2074 of 2015
Sikandar ... Appellant
Vs
K.Senthil ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.04.2014 and
made in MACTOP.No.6167 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Heard through video conferencing)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation under the Impugned Award dated
30.04.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( 3rd Court of
Small Causes, Chennai) in MCOP.No.6167 of 2014.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2074 of 2015
2. The Tribunal has directed the respondent to pay the Appellant a
compensation of Rs.6,89,000/- for the injuries sustained by the Appellant as
a result of an accident caused by a vehicle owned by the respondent on
06.11.2012.
3. Heard Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel for the
Appellant/claimant. The respondent has remained exparte both before the
Tribunal as well as this Court.
4. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal are as
follows:
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Loss of income 42,000/-
Transport to hospital 20,000/-
Extra nourishment 25,000/-
Damage to clothing 1,000/-
Medical Expenses 3,36,000/-
Future Medical Expenses 50,000/-
Attender charges 20,000/-
Loss of amenities for life 25,000/-
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2074 of 2015
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Pain and suffering 50,000/-
Permanent disability 1,20,000/-
Total 6,89,000/-
5. The Appellant/claimant was a businessman having a shop at Pondy
Bazaar in Chennai. In the claim petition, he has pleaded that he was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. Before the Tribunal, he has filed his identity card to
show that he is having a shop at Pondy Bazaar which has been marked as
Ex.P12. The Appellant/claimant has sustained the following injuries namely
(a) traumatic right sylvian fissure sub archnoid haemorrhage, (b) right distal
radius fracture, (c) right fracture tibial plataeu, (d) multiple soft tissue
injuries, (e) ORIF with valcp right distal radius, (f) ORIF right tibial plataeu
and (g) multiple injuries all over the body as a result of an accident on
06.11.2012. The Award which is under challenge is an exparte award and
the respondent who is owner of the vehicle which caused the accident has
remained exparte before the Tribunal.
6. The main contention of the Appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal
ought to have fixed his notional monthly income at a higher sum and should
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2074 of 2015
have adopted multiplier method for assessing the loss of earning capacity of
the Appellant/claimant. The Appellant/claimant was hospitalised only for a
period of nine days as seen from the discharge summary issued by the
Apollo hospital which has been marked as Ex.P2. This being the case, the
Tribunal has rightly not adopted the multiplier method for assessing the loss
of earning capacity of the Appellant/claimant and has rightly adopted the
percentage method for assessing the disability compensation. However, the
Tribunal has erroneously failed to take into consideration the year of the
accident for the purpose of assessing the disability compensation for the
Appellant/claimant.
7. The accident happened in the year 2013. The Doctor has assessed
the disability of the Appellant/claimant at 70% as seen from Ex.P13 which is
on the higher side and this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal
has rightly reduced the same to 60% based on the injuries sustained by the
Appellant/claimant and his period of hospitalisation. Therefore, the
assessment of disability by the Tribunal at 60% is confirmed by this Court.
The Tribunal has assessed the disability compensation for the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2074 of 2015
Appellant/claimant's 60% disability at Rs.1,20,000/- calculated at Rs.2,000/-
per percentage of disability which is low and it has to be necessarily
enhanced by this Court. If the year of the accident was given due
consideration, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the disability
compensation at Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability instead of Rs.2,000/-
per percentage of disability fixed by it. Accordingly, this Court enhances the
disability compensation for the Appellant/claimant at Rs.1,80,000/-
calculated at Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability instead of Rs.1,20,000/-
calculated at Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability for the 60% disability.
8. With regard to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
loss of income at Rs.42,000/- is concerned, the same has to be necessarily
enhanced as the notional monthly income of the Appellant/claimant fixed by
the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- is too low, considering the fact that the
Appellant/claimant is a businessman doing business at Pondy Bazaar,
Chennai as seen from the Identity card produced by him which has been
marked as Ex.P13. It is a well known fact that Pondy Bazaar is the heart of
the commercial activity in the city of Chennai. Therefore, this Court
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2074 of 2015
enhances the notional monthly income of the Appellant/claimant to
Rs.10,000/- from Rs.7,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly
awarded a compensation towards loss of income to the Appellant/claimant
for a period of six months, after giving due consideration to the nature of
injuries sustained by the Appellant/claimant as a result of the accident.
However, in view of the fact that the notional monthly income of the
Appellant/claimant is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- by this Court, the loss of
income of the Appellant/claimant during the period of his treatment is
enhanced to Rs.60,000/- instead of Rs.42,000/- fixed by the Tribunal.
9. With regard to the compensation assessed by the Tribunal under
various other heads namely transportation, extra nourishment, damage to
clothing, medical expenses, future medical expenses, attender charges, loss
of amenities and pain and suffering are concerned, the same is a just
compensation and there is no scope for interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the same is confirmed by this Court.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2074 of 2015
Tribunal is enhanced by this Court from Rs.6,89,000/- to Rs.7,67,000/- in
the following manner:
Heads Amount Amount awarded
awarded by the by this Court
Tribunal (Rs.)
(Rs.)
Loss of income 42,000/- 60,000/-
Transport to hospital 20,000/- 20,000/-
Extra nourishment 25,000/- 25,000/-
Damage to clothing 1,000/- 1,000/-
Medical Expenses 3,36,000/- 3,36,000/-
Future Medical 50,000/- 50,000/-
Expenses
Attender charges 20,000/- 20,000/-
Loss of amenities for 25,000/- 25,000/-
life
Pain and suffering 50,000/- 50,000/-
Permanent disability 1,20,000/- 1,80,000/-
Total 6,89,000/- 7,67,000/-
11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
The respondent is directed to deposit the modified award amount of
Rs.7,67,000/- after deducting the amount already deposited if any, together
with interest from the date of claim till the date of deposit and costs to the
credit of MCOP.No.6167 of 2013 within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2074 of 2015
Tribunal shall transfer the amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.6167 of
2013 to the bank account of the Appellant/claimant through RTGS within a
period of one week thereafter. No costs.
05.08.2021
nl
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2074 of 2015
1. The III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Record Section,
High Court of Madras
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2074 of 2015
nl
C.M.A.No.2074 of 2015
05.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
