Madras High Court
R. Indirani vs Kathari Vajaramma on 31 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A.No.2089 of 2021
R. Indirani ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Kathari Vajaramma
2. M/s.National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
C/o.Motor III Party Claims Office
No.752, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002. ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
23.07.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.2023 of 2014 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.T.G.Balachandran
For Respondents : Mr.N.B.Surekha for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of
compensation granted by the award dated 23.07.2020 made in
M.C.O.P.No.2023 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
II Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai.
2. The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2023 of 2014 on the
file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court at
Chennai. She filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the
accident that took place on 19.01.2014.
3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving
by the driver of the Splendor Motorcycle belonging to the first respondent
and directed the second respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of
Rs.1,20,200/- as compensation to the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Not being satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
P.W.2/Doctor assessed the percentage of disability suffered by the appellant
at 25% but the Tribunal reduced the same to 10% on the ground that PW2 is
not the Doctor who treated the appellant and and the percentage of disability
assessed by P.W.2/Doctor is on the higher side. The compensation awarded
by the Tribunal under different heads are meagre and prayed for
enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal rightly reduced
the percentage of disability suffered by the appellant from 25% to 10% on
the ground that assessment of disability by P.W.2/Doctor is not the Doctor,
who treated the claimant. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under
different heads are not meager and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
second respondent and perused the entire materials on record.
8. From the materials on record it is seen that the claimant suffered
injuries in a road accident that took place on 19.01.2014. The claimant
sustained fracture of both bone left leg, abrasion of right knee & ankle and
head injury. Thereafter, she was treated as in-patient in the Government
General Hospoital at Chennai from 19.01.2014 to 29.01.2014. The claimant
subsequently discharged from the hospital against the medical advice. PW2
is the Doctor who assessed the disability at 25%. Admittedly, he is not the
Doctor, who treated the claimant, however the Tribunal has taken the
disability at 10% and awarded compensation. Ex.P.2 discharge summary
from the Government General Hospital clearly shows that the claimant
suffered “laceration in parietal region, laceration in left lower limb and both
bone fracture left leg”. It is the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal
ought to have applied multiplier method and even going by percentage
method a sum of Rs.4,000/- per percentage should have been taken for the
purpose of awarding compensation. Except the fracture of both bone left
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
leg, other injuries cannot be treated as major injuries, however the Tribunal
should have taken 25% as partial and permenant disability and granted
relief. Due to the injuries and disability, the appellant would not have
attended his work atleast for a period of four months. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is modified to Rs.60,000/-
[Rs.15,000/- X 4]. The appellant has taken treatment in the hospital as in-
patient from 11.10.2008 to 19.10.2008 and the Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs.2,200/- towards attendant charges, which is meager and the same is
hereby enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads are very meagre. Thus, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified as follows:
S. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Disability 30,000/- 75,000/- Enhanced
2. Pain and sufferings 15,000/- 25,000/- Enhanced
3. Loss of income 30,000/- 60,000/- Enhanced
4. Transportation 12,000/- 12,000/- Confirmed
5. Extra nourishment 5,000/- 10,000/- Enhanced
6. Attendant charges 2,200/- 15,000/- Enhanced
7. Loss of amenities 10,000/- 15,000/- Enhanced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
8. Medical expenses 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
9. Future medical 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
expenses
10. Damages to clothes 1,000/- 1,000/- Confirmed
Total Rs.1,20,200/- Rs.2,28,000/- enhanced by
Rs.1,07,800/-
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,20,200/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.2,28,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The second
respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award
amount now determined by this Court together with interest and costs, less
the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is
permitted to withdraw the enhanced award amount, along with interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary
applications before the Tribunal. The appellant is directed to pay the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fee, if any for the enhanced award amount now determined by this Court.
No costs.
31.08.2021
dpq
Index :Yes
Internet :Yes
To
1.The II Court of Small Causes,
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
dpq
C.M.A.No.2089 of 2021
31.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
