Madras High Court

S. Karthick vs S. Raja Gopalan on 13 December, 2021

1 CMA.No.1114 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.12.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

C.M.A.No.1114 of 2017
---

S. Karthick ...Appellant

Versus

1. S. Raja Gopalan
2. The National Insurance Company Limited,
No. 1751, Anna Salai III Floor,
Chennai - 600 002. Respondents

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, against the award and decree in M.C.O.P.No.2886 of 2012, dated
04.09.2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [VI Small
Causes Court], Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr.K. Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondent-2 : Mr.C.R. Krishnamurthy
For Respondent-1 : Set Ex-Parte before the Tribunal

JUDGMENT

The appellant/claimant challenges the award dated 04.09.2013 passed

by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (VI Court of Small Causes),

Chennai, in M.C.O.P. No.2886 of 2012 filed by him. The claimant has come https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis up with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. This is a case of the injury. As per the claim petition, on

27.06.2011 at 09.45 hours, the injured was riding his motor-cycle bearing

Reg.No.TN-09-BJ-8350 at the junction of Arulammal Street and

Bhageerathiyammal Street, Thirumurthy Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. At that

time, a Car bearing Regn.No.TN-07-P-2956 came on the same road in a

dangerous speed and hit the motor-cycle driven by the claimant, thereby

causing him grievous injuries. Therefore, the claimant filed the claim petition

before the Tribunal against the respondents herein claiming a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.

3. The Insurance company has filed a counter affidavit denying the

averments made in the claim petition. According to the Insurance Company, it

is the claimant, due to his carelessness, has caused the accident. On the other

hand, the driver of the Car had driven it in a cautious manner and therefore, no

negligence could be attributed as against the driver of the Car. It is further

stated that the injuries, said to have suffered by the claimant, are exaggerated

and therefore, the compensation sought for by the claimant is excessive and

exorbitant. The Insurance Company also disputed the age, income and

avocation of the claimant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and

Dr.K.J. Mathiazhagan was examined as PW2 and Exs. P1 to P5 were marked.

On the side of respondents, neither any witness nor any document was marked.

The Tribunal, on analysing the oral and documentary evidence, has awarded

Rs.70,000/- as compensation together with interest at 7.5% per annum, under

the following heads:-

                                                  Heads                           Rs.
                             Loss of income for one month                          4,500/-
                             Extra nourishment & Transportation Damage to         15,000/-
                             Clothes
                             Medical Expenses                                      5,000/-
                             Attender Charges                                        500/-
                             Loss of Amenities                                    10,000/-
                             Pain and Suffering                                   15,000/-
                             Disability of 10% at the rate of Rs.2000/- per       20,000/-
                             percentage
                                                  Total                           70,000/-

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant

contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is measly in all the heads

against which the claimant claimed compensation. According to the claimant,

immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Bharathiraja Hospital as an

in-patient from 27.06.2011 to 29.06.2011 and after his discharge also, he is

taking treatment in private hospital. It is stated that the appellant had suffered https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis permanent disablement which had dented his earning capacity to a great extent

but this was not properly considered by the Tribunal. Further, the Doctor had

assessed his disability at 15% however, the Tribunal had taken the disability

only at 10% without any basis. In any event, the amount awarded by the

Tribunal is not befitting the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant. He

further contended that at the time of accident, the injured was 25 years, hale

and healthy and was working as Regional Purchase Manager in Tulip

Telecom, T.Nagar, Chennai, earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He was the sole

bread-winner of his family. But the Tribunal, without considering the grievous

injuries, period of treatment and his young age, fixed the monthly income at

Rs.4,500/-p.m, which is meager. Hence, the appellant/claimant seeks for

enhancement of compensation.

6. On the above contention, this Court heard the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company and perused the material records placed.

7. At the outset, it must be noted that the finding of the Tribunal that

the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car bearing

Regn.No.TN-07-P-2956 has become final and hence, it need not be adverted to

in the appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8. It is not in dispute that the injured sustained injuries in a road

accident that had taken place on 27.06.2011. Admittedly, the claimant had

taken treatment in Bharathiraja Hospital as an in-patient only for three days.

Further, PW2, Doctor, had assessed his disability at 15%, which the Tribunal

had reduced to 10% and awarded the compensation. On perusal of the entire

records, this Court is of the considered view that the injuries sustained by the

claimant are not such that it would have the effect of depriving his

employment or earning capacity.

9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant

has contended that the award is meager and sought enhancement, on a perusal

of the records, this Court finds that the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of

evidence of P.W.2 Dr.K.J.Mathiazhagan, Exs.P4-Discharge Summary and

Ex.P5-Disability Certificate, has fixed the monthly income at Rs.4,500/- per

month in the absence of any documentary proof filed by the claimant to prove

his income. Even though it was stated that the claimant was employed as

Regional Purchase Manager at Tulip Telecom, Chennai, the claimant has not

produced any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. Therefore, no

exception could be taken to the finding of the Tribunal in fixing the monthly

income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month. Further, the quantum of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis compensation under remaining heads fixed by the Tribunal are also quite

reasonable. In such circumstances, this Court find no reason to interfere with

the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. The appeal sans merits and it is liable

only to be dismissed.

10. In the result, the award and decree dated 04.09.2013 passed in

M.C.O.P.No.2886 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

[VI Small Causes Court], Chennai stands confirmed. The Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. The second respondent/

Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest

and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less the amount, if any already

deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to

withdraw the Award amount, along with accrued interest and costs as awarded