Madras High Court
Ruban @ Ruban Doss vs K.Nirmala on 2 December, 2021
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2019
Ruban @ Ruban Doss ... Appellant
Vs.
1.K.Nirmala
2.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rai's Tower, 2nd Floor, Plot No.2054, 2nd Avenue
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2019 made in
M.C.O.P.No.830 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II
Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arunkumar for R2
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2019
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.]
This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (II Small Causes Court), Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.830 of 2014, dated
21.01.2019.
2.For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking in
the claim petition.
3.The case of the claimant is that on 22.11.2013, at about 22.00 hours, he
was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN 22 CV 6250 along Old
Mahabalipuram road and when nearing Victoria Tower, the driver of the lorry
bearing Registration No.TN 32 F 3469 came behind in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the motor cycle and in the said accident, he had
sustained fracture of left leg resulting in amputation of left foot, and multiple
injuries all over the body. Initially, he took treatment at Chettinad Hospital and
thereafter, he was admitted in Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2019
Chennai. Alleging that the accident had happened due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the lorry, the claimant laid a claim petition before the
Tribunal for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.
4. The appellant Insurance Company filed their counter disputing the
manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the claimant and its liability to
pay the compensation.
5. To substantiate the case, on the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were
examined and Exs.P.1 to 10 were marked. On the side of the respondents, neither
the witness nor the evidence was adduced.
6.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence held
that the driver of the 1st respondent lorry was responsible for the accident and
awarded compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- to the claimant. Being dissatisfied with
the quantum, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2019
7.The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would contend that since
the amount awarded by the Tribunal is meager in all the heads, the claimant is
entitled for higher compensation. He would further contend that at the time of
accident, the claimant was 36 years old and hale and healthy. He was the sole
breadwinner of his family. He would further contend that the claimant was
working as Painter and earning Rs.600/- per day, whereas, the Tribunal has not
granted any amount under the head of 'Loss of earning capacity' and also failed to
consider the future prospects of the claimant as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble
Apex Court. He would further submit that the witness, P.W.2-Dr.M.S.Saravana
Bavanatham, spoke about the injuries sustained by the claimant and the disability
caused because of the said accident. Though the claimant has produced Exs.P.2 to
4, to show that he had taken treatment at various hospitals at various point of
time, the Tribunal granted a meager sum of Rs.65,000/- under the head of medical
expenses, which needs proper appreciation. Hence, the appellant/claimant seeks
for enhancement of compensation under other heads also.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2019
Company submitted that the impugned Judgment and Decree awarding the
aforesaid compensation is well reasoned and it requires no interference and
therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9.This Court carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and
perused the materials available on record.
10. From the perusal of records, it is seen that the claimant was a painter by
profession. On account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, left leg
mid foot amputation was done. Furthermore, he sustained fracture and degloving
injury in the left leg. After analysing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal
at Paragraph 10 of the order observed as follows:
"10. The petitioner has produced three discharge summaries
to substantiate his claim. The first discharge summary Ex.P2 shows
that he has got a crush injury on the left foot and bony fragments
were exposed and so was the dry muscles and tendons. Mid foot
amputation was done, fractured fragment of left foot were removed,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2019
navicular bone removed and skin grafting was done by taking skin
from left thigh. He was an inpatient at RGGH Chennai, from
23.11.2013 to 11.01.2014. Ex.P3 is the discharge summary issued
by Chettinad Hospital when the petitioner was admitted with
difficulty in walking. He was admitted as in patient in the said
Hospital from 24.05.2016 to 09.06.2016. He was operated on
28.05.2016 for TA lengthening and post lateral ankle fusion. Ex.P4
is the discharge summary issued by Chettinad Hospital when the
Petitioner was admitted with pain at the surgical site. He was
admitted as in patient in the said Hospital from 21.06.2016 to
04.07.2016. He was found to having heavy growth of coagulase
negative staphylococis and was treated with medicine and after he
was found to be improving symptomatically he was discharged.
These three documents shows that his left foot was amputated
because of the said accident. Ex.P7 is the Photo which shows that
his foot was amputated. The Respondent has not brought out any
materials during the cross examination or have not produced any
evidence that would make the contention of the petitioner
unbelievable. Therefore this Tribunal holds that the petitioner has
sustained amputation of left foot because of the said accident."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2019
11. It is relevant to note that this is a fit case to apply multiplier method to
determine the loss of earning capacity. But the Tribunal has awarded a total sum
of Rs.5,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is the case of the
claimant that he was earning Rs.600/- per day, but it is not supported by any
evidence. Therefore, we fix the notional monthly income of the claimant as
Rs.10,000/- and add Rs.4,000/- towards future prospects and if so, the actual
monthly income would be Rs.14,000/-. Considering the fact that the claimant
sustained 50% disability, this Court awards Rs.12,60,000/- [14,000 x 12 x 15 x
50/100] towards Loss of Earning Capacity.
12. Further, this Court awards Rs.50,000/- under the head Attender
Charges and enhances the Transportation Charges to Rs.25,000/- from
Rs.15,000/-. In addition to that, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal
under the heads, viz., Rs.1,00,000/- towards Pain and Sufferings;
Rs.50,000/- towards Loss of Amenities; Rs.20,000/- towards Extra Nourishment;
Rs.65,000/- towards Medical Expenses; and Rs.50,000/- towards Future Medical
Expenses, are confirmed. In total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.16,20,000/- along
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2019
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the
date of realization.
13.Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant/claimant is
re-calculated and tabulated below:
S.No. Heads under which amounts are Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs.
awarded
1. Disability 2,50,000/- -
2. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
3. Loss of Amenities 50,000/- 50,000/-
4. Transportation Charges 15,000/- 25,000/-
5. Extra Nourishment 20,000/- 20,000/-
6. Medical Expenses 65,000/- 65,000/-
7. Future Medical Expenses 50,000/- 50,000/-
8. Attender charges - 50,000/-
9. Loss of Earning Capacity - 12,60,000/-
Total 5,50,000/- 16,20,000/-
14.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2019
of Rs.16,20,000/- with accrued 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 claimant is permitted to withdraw the award
amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate
interest and costs. No costs.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
02.12.2021
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Jer
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(II Small Causes Court), Chennai.
2.V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2019
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
Jer
C.M.A.No.3890 of 2020
02.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
