Madras High Court
H.Srinivasalu vs R.Murugesan on 1 December, 2021
C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008
H.Srinivasalu .. Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Murugesan
2.The New India Assurance Company Limited,
No.80, Arcot Road, Porur,
Chennai – 600 116. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
06.06.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.167 of 2006 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvallur.
For Appellant : Mr.Amar D.Pandiya
For R2 : Mr.J.Chandran
JUDGMENT
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of
compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 06.06.2008 made in
M.C.O.P.No.167 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008
Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvallur.
2.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.167 of 2006 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court,
Thiruvallur. He filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident that took place on 02.06.2005.
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 vehicle belonging to 1st respondent and directed the
respondents to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.3,22,300/- as
compensation to the appellant.
4.Not being satisfied with the amounts 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 in the
accident, the appellant suffered grievous injuries and fracture. He has taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008
treatment as inpatient from 02.06.2005 to 29.07.2005 at Southern Railway
Hospital at Perambur, Chennai. Subsequently, again in the same Hospital, he
has taken treatment from 13.10.2005 to 25.10.2005 as inpatient. Due to the
injuries and fracture, he could not do his work as he was doing earlier. Before
the date of accident, the appellant was working as 'Technologist' Assistant
Engineer at Tech Semiconductor Singapore, PTE LTD., No.1 Woodlands
Industrial Park, 'D' Street-1, Singapore – 738 799 and was earning a sum of
Rs.75,000/- to 80,000/- per month. Due to the injuries and fracture, he lost his
job and joined in another Company for lesser pay. Even the said Company
also dismissed him from service. To substantiate this, he examined himself as
P.W.1 and examined Dr.Saichandran as P.W.2. P.W.2/Doctor is the Doctor
who examined the appellant and assessed that he suffered 55% disability and
P.W.3/Doctor is the Doctor who treated the appellant. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant filed additional typed set of papers and contended
that Doctor advised the appellant to replace the knee and he has to spend
more than Rs.8,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. The Tribunal ought
to have adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation for loss of
earning capacity and prayed for enhancement of compensation.
6.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008
respondent-Insurance Company contended that the appellant has not proved
his avocation and income by documentary evidence and hence, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income by fixing a
sum of Rs.20,000/- as monthly income of the appellant is not meagre. The
appellant has not proved that he lost his earning capacity and suffered
functional disability and hence, he is not entitled to compensation by adopting
multiplier method. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries and
disability awarded just compensation and hence, the appellant is not entitled
for any enhancement and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.First respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal. Hence, notice
to 1st respondent is dispensed with.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and
perused the entire materials on record.
9.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the appellant in
the claim petition has claimed that he was working as 'Technologist' Assistant
Engineer at Tech Semiconductor Singapore, PTE LTD., No.1 Woodlands
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008
Industrial Park, 'D' Street-1, Singapore – 738 799 and was earning a sum of
Rs.75,000/- to 80,000/- per month. The appellant also produced materials to
show that he was employed in Singapore and he became a permanent resident
of Singapore and he was employed in Tech Semiconductor Singapore, PTE
LTD., No.1 Woodlands Industrial Park, 'D' Street-1, Singapore – 738 799.
The appellant also produced certificate to show that he was earning a sum of
2700 Singapore Dollar. After the accident, the appellant went to Singapore in
the year 2006 and joined in other company. The accident occurred in the year
2005. Considering the entire materials stated above, this Court fixes a sum of
Rs.35,000/- as monthly income of the appellant. The appellant joined in his
company and subsequently is continuing his job from another company from
the year 2006. Therefore, the appellant has not lost his earning capacity and
has not suffered any functional disability. Hence, the appellant is not entitled
for any compensation by adopting multiplier method. But, the appellant
would not have worked during treatment period. Hence, the appellant is
entitled to compensation for loss of income during treatment period for 6
months. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of
income is modified to Rs.2,10,000/- (Rs.35,000/- X 6 months). The Tribunal
considering the disability certificate issued by P.W.2/Doctor at 55% awarded
a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 55% of disability) towards disability at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008
the rate of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability and the same is not meagre.
10.The appellant has taken treatment as inpatient from 02.06.2005 to
29.07.2005 at Southern Railway Hospital at Perambur, Chennai.
Subsequently, again in the same Hospital, he has taken treatment from
13.10.2005 to 25.10.2005 as inpatient. However, the Tribunal has not
awarded any amount towards attendant charges. Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/-
is awarded towards attendant charges. Considering the nature of injuries and
disability, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- for loss of
amenities. Further, the appellant underwent five surgeries and plates and
screws were fixed. For removal of plates and screws, the appellant underwent
another surgery. From the additional typed set of papers, it is seen that
Dr.G.Sundar Ganesh has issued a certificate dated 01.11.2021 to the effect
that appellant need multiple surgeries for him to walk without pain and
without any orthotics. Considering the certificate issued by Dr.G.Sundar
Ganesh dated 01.11.2021 and photographs, this Court is of the view that
appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards future medical
expenses. Further, the appellant has produced invoice for paying cost of
materials required for operation underwent by him. The Tribunal rejected the
same as the appellant has not produced any receipt for having purchased the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008
materials. It is not in dispute that appellant underwent five surgeries and the
Hospital would have required materials for conducting the surgeries. As per
Ex.P9 / Medical Bills, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-
towards medical bills. Considering the nature of injuries and period of
treatment taken by the appellant, this Court is of the view that the amounts
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence,
the same are hereby confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified as follows:
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
No by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Disability 1,10,000/- 1,10,000/- Confirmed
2. Pain and sufferings 80,000/- 80,000/- Confirmed
3. Extra nourishment 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
4. Medical expenses 62,300/- 1,10,000/- Enhanced
5. Loss of Income 50,000/- 2,10,000/- Enhanced
6. Transportation 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
7. Attendant charges - 15,000/- Granted
8. Loss of Amenities - 25,000/- Granted
9. Future medical - 2,00,000/- Granted
expenses
Total Rs.3,22,300/- Rs.7,70,000/- Enhanced by
Rs.4,47,700/-
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,22,300/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.7,70,000/-. The appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit only for the
amount awarded by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the appellant is not
entitled to any interest for the delay period on the amount of Rs.4,47,700/-,
now enhanced by this Court as per the order of this Court dated 16.09.2021
made in C.M.P.No.10046 of 2020 in C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008. The 2 nd
respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount now
determined by this Court along 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, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.167 of 2006 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court,
Thiruvallur. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the
award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs,
less the amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary applications
before the Tribunal. No costs.
01.12.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Thiruvallur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008
krk
C.M.A.No.3393 of 2008
01.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
