Madras High Court
K.Pitchaiamani vs The Tamilnadu State Transport ... on 16 December, 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.933 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD)No.933 of 2014
K.Pitchaiamani ...Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,
Rep. through its Managing Director,
Naval Nagar,
Dindigul. ...Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, against the award and decree, dated 27.01.2014 passed in
M.C.O.P.No.1187 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Madurai.
For Appellant :Mr.V.Sakthivel
For Respondent :Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1187 of 2009 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.933 of 2014
He filed the claim petition under Sections 140, 161, 162 and 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the injuries sustained
by him in a road accident on 10.07.2008.
2. The case of the claimant, in nutshell, is as follows:
On 10.07.2008 the claimant riding in his motorcycle bearing
Registration No.TN-59-AD-2394 towards Vadipatti in Madurai to Vadipatti
main road and one Rajaram was travelling as a pillion rider in the said
motorcycle. When the motorcycle was proceeding near Ayyankottai, a lorry
bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-1242, which was coming from opposite
direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against
the motorcycle. Due to the said accident, the petitioner has sustained
grievous injuries and immediately he was taken to Appollo Speciality
Hospital, Madurai and admitted as inpatient from 10.07.2008 to 27.08.2008.
3.The claimant has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1187 of
2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/II Additional Sub
Judge, Madurai, seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.933 of 2014
4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant six witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and thirty six documents were marked as Exs.P.1
to P.36. On the side of the respondent, no one was examined and no
document was marked.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the claimant and the
respondent and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held that the
accident occurred only, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the respondent and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4,05,100/- as
compensation. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the
claimant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
6.Heard Mr.V.Sakthivel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and
perused the material documents available on record.
7.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that prior to the
accident, the claimant earned more than Rs.2,00,000/- per year from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.933 of 2014
commission as LIC Agent. Due to injury he could not speak and could not
attend his work and lost his job. But the Tribunal has fixed 22% of disability
and granted Rs.2,000/- for 1 % of his partial permanent disability and
awarded Rs.44,000/-. Since the functional disability is 100% the Tribunal has
failed to adopt multiplier method for calculating the loss of income and
further the tribunal has failed to award proper compensation with regard to
pain and suffering. Therefore he prayed for enhancement of compensation.
8.The respondent/State Transport Corporation has not filed any appeal
against the award passed by the Tribunal.
9.Today the appellant is present before this Court. He could not speak
and did not attend any work without attendant. Hence, 100% functional
disability is agreed to the appellant. Since the functional disability is 100%,
multiplier method has to be adopted. As per documents Ex.P21 to P25, the
claimant earned more than Rs.2,00,000/- per year from commission as LIC
Agent. Hence, this Court fixed a sum of Rs.7,000/- as his monthly income.
Since the age of the appellant is 36 years, the multiplier applicable is '15'.
Therefore, loss of income arrived at Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.12,60,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.933 of 2014
10.The award passed by this Court under various heads is extracted
hereunder:
S.No. Head Amount granted by
this Court
1. Loss of income Rs. 12,60,000
2. Transportation charges Rs. 8,000/-
3. Extra Nourishment Rs. 20,000/-
4. Damages to cloth Rs. 2,500/-
5. Nursing Assistance Rs. 9,800/-
6. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,70,800/-
7. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs. 16,21,100/-
11.In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
(ii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced
from Rs.4,05,100/- to Rs.16,21,100/- which would carry interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum.
(iii)The respondent/Transport Corporation Limited, is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation amount i.e., Rs.16,21,100/- (Rupees
Sixteen lakhs twenty one thousand one hundred only), less the amount
already deposited, if any, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.933 of 2014
from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.1187 of 2009, dated 27.01.2014 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal/II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) On such deposit being made, the appellant / claimant is entitled to
to withdraw the same by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.
16.12.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsd
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The II Additional Subordinate Judge
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.933 of 2014
S.ANANTHI, J.
vsd
Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD)No.933 of 2014
16.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
