Madras High Court
P.Govindasamy vs M.Mani on 2 December, 2021
C.M.A.No.1081 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.1081 of 2014
P.Govindasamy .. Appellant
Vs.
1.M.Mani
2.The Branch Manager,
The United India Insurance Company Limited,
No.6, Ganga Griha,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
06.04.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.930 of 2006 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan
for Mr.M.Sriram
For R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1081 of 2014
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 06.04.2011 made in
M.C.O.P.No.930 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.
2.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.930 of 2006 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.
He filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place
on 15.12.2003.
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 Tractor belonging to 1st respondent and directed the
respondents 1 & 2 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.1,09,840/- as
compensation to the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1081 of 2014
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 the Tribunal has
awarded meagre amount as compensation. The appellant was an Agriculturist
and also doing Coconut Business in large scale at the time of accident. Due to
the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he could not continue his work
as he was doing earlier. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have adopted
multiplier method and awarded compensation for future loss of income. The
amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, extra
nourishment, transportation, attendant charges and loss of amenities are
meagre. The appellant has taken treatment in St.John Medical College
Hospital, Bangalore as inpatient from 15.12.2003 to 02.02.2004.
P.W.2/Doctor examined the appellant and certified that the appellant suffered
45% disability. The Tribunal without giving any valid reason, reduced the
percentage of disability to 25% and granted compensation only for 25% at the
rate of Rs.1,500/- and the same is meagre. The Tribunal ought to have
awarded compensation for 45% disability. The rate of interest awarded by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1081 of 2014
Tribunal at 6% per annum is meagre and prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
6.Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and his name is
printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him, either in person or
through counsel.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent-
Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal reduced the percentage of
disability assessed by P.W.2/Doctor from 45% to 25% on the ground that
P.W.2/Doctor has assessed the percentage of disability of the appellant
exorbitantly. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to compensation for 45%
disability. The appellant has not proved that he lost his income during
treatment period. Hence, he is not entitled to any compensation towards loss
of income. Further, the appellant has not proved that he suffered functional
disability. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any amount towards
future loss of income by adopting multiplier method. The Tribunal
considering the entire materials on record, has awarded a sum of
Rs.1,09,840/- as compensation, which is not meagre. The appellant has not
made out any case for enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1081 of 2014
of the appeal.
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 it is the case of
the appellant that in the accident he sustained grievous injuries all over the
body. P.W.2/Doctor examined the appellant and certified that appellant
suffered 45% disability and issued Ex.A6/disability certificate to that effect.
The Tribunal reduced the percentage of disability from 45% to 25% on the
ground that P.W.2/Doctor has assessed the percentage of disability of the
appellant exorbitantly. The reason given by the Tribunal for reducing the
percentage of disability from 45% to 25% is not correct. The 2 nd
respondent/Insurance Company has not let in any evidence to disprove the
evidence of P.W.2/Doctor and Ex.A6/disability certificate. Therefore, the
appellant is entitled to compensation for 45% of disability. The accident is of
the year 2003 and a sum of Rs.1,500/- awarded by the Tribunal per
percentage of disability is not meagre. Thus, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal towards disability is enhanced to Rs.67,500/- (Rs.1,500/- X 45% of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1081 of 2014
disability). The appellant has not proved that he suffered functional disability
and lost his earning capacity. Hence, he is not entitled to any compensation
towards future loss of income by adopting multiplier method.
10.It is the contention of the appellant that at the time of accident, he
was aged 43 years, an Agriculturist and also doing Coconut Business in large
scale and was earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. The appellant has not
produced any documentary evidence to prove his avocation and income. The
accident occurred in the year 2003. Considering the year of accident, age and
nature of work done by the appellant, a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month is fixed
as notional income of the appellant. The appellant has taken treatment in
St.John Medical College Hospital, Bangalore as inpatient from 15.12.2003 to
02.02.2004. Further, the appellant underwent three surgeries during the
treatment period. Considering the nature of work, disability and period of
treatment taken by the appellant, he would not have attended his work atleast
for a period of six months. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rs.5,000/- X 6 months) towards loss of income. Considering the
nature of injuries, period of treatment taken and disability suffered by the
appellant, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment
and attendant charges are meagre and the same are enhanced to Rs.7,500/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1081 of 2014
each. 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 37,500/- 67,500/- Enhanced
2. Pain and sufferings 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
3. Medical expenses 28,340/- 28,340/- Confirmed
4. Transportation 3,000/- 3,000/- Confirmed
5. Future medical 20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed
expenses
6. Attendant charges 3,000/- 7,500/- Enhanced
7. Extra nourishment 3,000/- 7,500/- Enhanced
8. Loss of Income - 30,000/- Granted
Total Rs.1,09,840/- Rs.1,78,840/- Enhanced by
Rs.69,000/-
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,09,840/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.1,78,840/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondents 1& 2 are
jointly and severally 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.930 of 2006 on the file of the Motor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1081 of 2014
Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Krishnagiri. 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.
It is made clear that the appellant is not entitled to any interest on the
enhanced amount of Rs.69,000/- for the delay period as per the order of this
Court dated 13.02.2014 made in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in C.M.A.SR.No.55269
of 2013. No costs.
02.12.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1081 of 2014
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.1081 of 2014
02.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
