Madras High Court
Meganathan vs Pradeep Kumar Mohata on 17 December, 2021
C.M.A.No. 1687 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S. KANNAMMAL
C.M.A.No. 1687 of 2018
Meganathan .. Appellant
Versus
1. Pradeep Kumar Mohata,
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited,
No.1, Club House Road, Anna Salai,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 20.12.2016 made in MCOP
No.2579 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Small
Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For R1 : No Appearance
For R2 : Mr.M.B. Raghavan
JUDGMENT
The appellant challenges the award dated 20.12.2016 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in MCOP
No.2579 of 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 1687 of 2018
2. The claimant has come up with this appeal seeking enhancement
of compensation. This is a case of injury. According to the claimant, on
06.03.2013 at 13.30 hours, he was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-
05-P-9912 in which is wife Mrs. Manomaniam was riding pillion. When the
two wheeler was proceeding in front of the office of the Fisheries Department,
East Coast Road, the first respondent, drove the car bearing Reg.No.TN-04-
AD-0246 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's
motorcycle. In the impact, the claimant and his wife sustained grievous
injuries. Therefore, for the injuries sustained in the accident, he claimed a sum
of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. However, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.2,70,200/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum, under the following
heads:-
Heads Rs.
Loss of income 26,500/-
Attender Charges 4,000/-
Transport to Hospital 5,000/-
Extra Nourishment 10,000/-
Damage to Clothing 1,000/-
Medical Bills 88,615/-
Pain and Suffering 20,000/-
Mental and Physical Shock 10,000/-
Loss of Amenities 15,000/-
Disability 30% @ Rs.3,000/- 90,000/-
2,70,115/-
Total rounded of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2,70,200/-
C.M.A.No. 1687 of 2018
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend
that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager in all the heads. He
would further contend that at the time of accident, the injured was 54 years
and hale and healthy. He was the sole breadwinner of his family. He would
further contend that the tribunal has wrongly reduced the disability from 55%
to 40% without any rhyme or reason. The Tribunal did not consider that the
claimant had incurred enormous medical expenses and due to the injuries, he
could not normally sit, stand or walk for a considerable duration. Thus,
according to the counsel for the appellant, the injuries the claimant had
sustained had dented his ability to earn which could be evident from the
disability issued by the competent Medical Board at 55%. However, the
Tribunal has not taken note of the age, loss of income suffered, period of
treatment etc., and awarded compensation which is disproportionate to the
nature of injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the
claimant prayed for enhancement of compensation.
4. On the above contentions, this court heard the learned counsel for
the insurance company, who prayed for dismissal of the appeal inasmuch as
the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not warrant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 1687 of 2018
enhancement and it falls within the 'fair and reasonable' theory enunciated by
this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court in catena of decisions.
5. This Court carefully considered the submission of the learned
counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in a road
accident that had taken place on 06.03.2013. For the injuries sustained by
him, he has filed the instant claim petition and his wife also filed a separate
claim petition for the injuries she suffered. In both the claim petitions,
common evidence was adduced and the Tribunal passed the common award in
both the claim petition filed by the appellant and his wife.
7. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the Car has become final and hence, it need not be
adverted to in the appeal.
8. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
has contended that the award is meager and sought enhancement, on perusal of
the records, we find that the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of evidence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 1687 of 2018
PW1 to PW4 and Ex.P1 to P7 acquittance register, has fixed the monthly
income, adopted correct multiplier and awarded a just and reasonable
compensation. In fact, the Tribunal noted that PW2, Doctor, is not the one
who has given treatment to the claimant. Further, it was noticed that the
Disability Certificate was given three years after the accident. The Tribunal has
also recorded a finding on the basis of the deposition of the Doctor that the
injuries sustained by the claimant are not such that it would deprive his earning
capacity. Though the Tribunal has taken 40% disability instead of 55% by
giving proper reason, mistakenly taken only 30% and awarded Rs.90,000/- by
taking Rs.3,000/- per percentage which has to be modified by taking 40%
disability which awarded to Rs.1,20,000/- (40x Rs.3000) instead of
Rs.90,000/-
9. Further, the claimant has not produced any documents to prove
his income, but merely asserted that he is engaged in real estate business and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed a sum of
Rs.7,500/- as monthly income. As the appellant/claimant was 54 years old at
the time of accident, a sum of Rs.26,500/- was awarded towards loss of income
for 106 days at the rate of Rs.250/- per day. This methodology adopted by the
Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, is wholly justified and legally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 1687 of 2018
sustainable.
10. The Tribunal, taking into account the totality of the facts and
circumstances, has awarded compensation under the head of Attender charges,
Transportation to hospital, extra nourishment, damage to clothing, pain and
suffering etc., The amount awarded under these heads are fair and reasonable
and they do not warrant interference, except the modification with regard to the
award towards disability which is calculated fixing Rs.3,000/- per percentage
for 40% disability which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- instead of Rs.9,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal and it is liable only to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the decree and judgment dated 20.12.2016 made in
MCOP No.2579 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III
Small Causes Court), Chennai are confirmed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
fails and the same is disposed of. No costs.
17.12.2021
Speaking order: Yes/No
msm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 1687 of 2018
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No. 1687 of 2018
S.KANNAMMAL, J
msm
C.M.A.No. 1687 of 2018
17.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
