Madras High Court
Shankar vs Ramachandran.R on 3 December, 2021
CMA.No.1255 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CMA No.1255 of 2020
Shankar ... Appellant
Vs
1.Ramachandran.R
2.The Branch Manager,
M/s.Cholamandalam MS General,
Insurance Company Ltd.,
100 Feet Road (opp. to MPL Ford),
Mudaliarpet, Puducherry-4. ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award dated 09.01.2020 in
M.A.C.T.O.P. No.233 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal at Puducherry, in so far as it relates to the quantum of
compensation.
For Appellant : Ms.Janani
For Respondents : Ms.S.R.Sree Vidhya (for R2)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1255 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The claimant is on appeal terming the compensation of
Rs.2,27,200/- awarded to him for the injury suffered in a motor accident that
occurred on 17.09.2014 as meagre.
2.According to the claimant, while he was riding a two wheeler
from Puducherry to Villupuram on the extreme left side of the road, a load
carrier vehicle bearing Registration No.PY01-BY-3849 coming in the
opposite direction driven in a rash and negligence manner, dashed against
the petitioner's motor cycle, as a result, the petitioner was thrown out of the
vehicle and he suffered Degloving Injury over dorsum of right side foot till
bone depth; Laceration over the right knee about 07x08 cms extending to
bone depth and; the Metatorsal fracture for the 2nd and 3rd fingers of the right
foot. He was admitted as inpatient on 17.09.2014 and was discharged on
09.10.2014. The claim had assessed the compensation payable to him at
Rs.49,10,500/-.
3.The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company contending
that the accident did not occurred in the manner suggested by the claimant.
There was a delay in filing the police complaint. The claim made was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1255 of 2020
termed as highly excessive. The Tribunal upon consideration of the
evidence held that the driver of the goods vehicle bearing registration
No.PY01-BY-3849 was responsible for the accident and that the Insurance
Company is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal assessed the
quantum of compensation under various heads as follows:
S.No. Heads Amount
Rs.
1 Pain and Sufferings 50,000
2 Medical expenses 30,000
3 Future Medical expenses 10,000
4 Loss of comfort and basic amenities 10,000
5 Rich and nutritious food 10,000
6 Transport expenses 6,200
7 Attender charges 33,000
8 Loss of income 42,000
9 Permanent Disability 36,000
Total 2,27,200
4.The Tribunal also found that the claimant had produced forged
bills for physiotherapy and they were rejected.
5.I have heard Ms.Janani, learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1255 of 2020
appellant and Ms.S.R.Sree Vidhya, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
6.Ms.Janani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
vehemently contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding only a sum of
Rs.36,000/- towards permanent disability. The Tribunal should have adopted
the multiplier method instead of percentage method in assessing the
compensation for permanent disability. She would also termed the award of
Rs.10,000/- for future medical expenses as meagre.
7.I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant.
8.The nature of injuries suffered do not justify the claim. The
fractures which can be called as grievous injuries or injuries which could
result in permanent disability are only Metatorsal fractures on the the 2nd
and 3rd toe on the right leg. These are not very serious injuries and they will
not result in any permanent disablement, leave alone functional
disablement. However, in view of the assessment of permanent disability at
12% by the medical personnel, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.36,000/- (12% X Rs.3000/-). I do not see any reason to interfere with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1255 of 2020
award of the Tribunal. As regards future medical expenses also, the award of
Rs.10,000/- would be more than sufficient as there is very remote possibility
of any future medical expense on the nature of injuries. In fact, I find that
the award for attendant charges and loss of income are on the higher side.
However, since the Insurance Company has not filed an appeal challenging
the same, the award is left undisturbed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
03.12.2021
vs
Index: No
Speaking order
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Puducherry.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1255 of 2020
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
vs
CMA No.1255 of 2020
03.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
