Madras High Court
Govindarajan vs Kanagasekar on 18 August, 2021
CMA No.327 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 18.08.2021
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANAHAN
CMA No.327 of 2009
Govindarajan ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Kanagasekar
2. Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited,
Cuddalore.
3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Mayiladuthurai Town,
Nagapattinam District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act against the decree and judgment dated 20.06.2007
passed in M.C.O.P.No.157 of 2005 by the Principal Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayiladurai.
For Appellant : Ms.H.Kavitha
for Mr.S.Sounthar
For Respondents : Ms. Harini
for Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan for R2
Mr.D.Bhaskar for R3
No appearance for R1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1 of 8
CMA No.327 of 2009
ORDER
Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present Appeal to enhance the
compensation.
2. The appellant/claimant has filed a claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road
accident that occurred on 11.12.2004.
3. Brief case of the claimant is as follows:
On 11.12.2004, at 8.45 p.m., while the claimant was
returning from Anandamangam to Thiruvengadu in his Hero Honda
Splendor motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-51-C-0939, a mini load
auto bearing registration No.TN-51-C-0939, belonging to the first
respondent coming from the opposite direction, hit the petitioner, thereby
he sustained injuries all over his body. According to the claimant, the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini auto was the cause of
accident and since the first respondent insured his mini auto with the
second respondent, both of them are liable to pay compensation to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 of 8
CMA No.327 of 2009
claimant. The third respondent, who is the insurer of the motor cycle has
been impleaded as a formal party to avoid raising of any legal issues.
4. The second respondent has filed the counter affidavit
resisting the claim of the claimant.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant and one Dr.Rajasekaran
were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively and marked Exs.P1 to P21.
were marked. On the side of the first respondent, no oral and
documentary evidence were adduced.
6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation and directed the first and
second respondents to pay the same to the claimant. Details of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is extracted hereunder.
Sl Heads Amount in
No Rs.
1 Disability 24,000
2 Medical expenses 11,500
3 Transportation charges 2,500
4 Loss of Income 20,000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3 of 8
CMA No.327 of 2009
Sl Heads Amount in
No Rs.
5 Extra Nourishment 2,000
Total 60,000
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant submitted
that, the claimant sustained injuries on his right shoulder and right hand
and a surgery was also done on his left leg and he was treated as an
inpatient for nearly one month. However, the Tribunal has not awarded
any amount towards "Pain and Suffering" and also towards "Loss of
Amenities". He further submitted that the Tribunal has not applied
multiplier method while calculating compensation for "Permanent
Disability" and no amount was awarded towards " Future Loss of earning
capacity". Hence, he prayed for enhancement of compensation.
8. The learned counsel for the second respondent/ Insurance
Company submitted that after perusing the oral and documentary
evidence and also considering all the facts, the Tribunal has awarded a
just and reasonable compensation and hence, and it does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4 of 8
CMA No.327 of 2009
learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and perused the material
documents available on record.
10. The Doctor, who issued Disability Certificate was
examined as PW2. By considering the nature of injuries sustained by
the claimant and also taking into account the surgery made on his right
leg and also the shortened of right leg by 1.5 c.m., PW2-Doctor has
assessed the disablement suffered by the claimant at 34%. However,
without any reason, the Tribunal has reduced the same to 24% on its
own. Therefore, the disability suffered by the claimant is fixed by this
court at 34%, as per the Disability Certificate Ex.A2.
11. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal has rightly
fixed a sum of Rs.1,000/- per percentage and hence, a sum of Rs.34,000/-
is awarded towards “ Permanent Disability”. Further, considering the
nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and also taking into
account the period of treatment as inpatient, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is
awarded towards “Pain and Suffering” and a sum of Rs.5,000/- is
awarded towards “ Loss of amenities.” Accordingly, the compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5 of 8
CMA No.327 of 2009
awarded by the Tribunal is modified. Details of the same are tabulated
below.
Sl. Heads Compensation Compensation
No Awarded by the enhanced/
Tribunal Awarded by
this court
1 Disability 24,000 34,000
2 Medical expenses 11,500 11,500
3 Transportation 2,500 2,500
charges
4 Loss of Income 20,000 20,000
5 Extra Nourishment 2,000 2,000
5 Pain and sufferings - 15,000
6 Loss of amenities - 5,000
Total 60,000 90,000
12. The award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced from a
sum of Rs.60,000/- to a sum of Rs.90000/- (Rupees ninety thousand
only). The interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum from the
date of claim petition till the date of deposit, is confirmed.
13. The second respondent/Royal Sundaram Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6 of 8
CMA No.327 of 2009
Company Limited is directed to deposit the revised compensation of
Rs.90,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5.% p.a. from the date of claim
petition till the date of deposit, less the amount if any, already deposited,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. On such deposit being made by the second respondent/Insurance
company, the Appellant/ claimant is entitled to withdraw the same, after
following due process of law.
14. In the result, the CMA is partly allowed. No costs.
18.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking order
mst
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mayiladurai.
2. Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited,
Cuddalore.
S.VAIDYANAHAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7 of 8
CMA No.327 of 2009
mst
CMA No.327 of 2009
18.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8 of 8
