Madras High Court
Vijay Sankar vs T.N.Srinivasan on 20 December, 2021
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2014
Vijay Sankar .. Appellant
Vs.
1.T.N.Srinivasan
2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,
1st Floor, Arihant Plaza,
No.84/85, Waltax Road,
Chennai – 600 003. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
06.12.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.5097 of 2010 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Ms.R.Sreevidhya
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1994 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 06.12.2013 made in
M.C.O.P.No.5097 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.5097 of 2010 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai. He
filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place
on 05.12.2010.
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 Tata Ace van belonging to 1st respondent and directed the 2nd
respondent to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the appellant.
4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2014
compensation.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
appellant sustained grievous injuries and disability in the accident. He has
taken outpatient treatment at Vee Care Hospital on 05.12.2010. P.W.4/Doctor
examined the appellant and certified that the appellant suffered 45%
disability. The appellant filed and marked documents and examined
P.W.4/Doctor and proved the injuries and disability suffered by him. The
respondents have not let in any contra evidence to disprove the case of the
appellant. In the absence of any contra evidence, the Tribunal erroneously
reduced the percentage of disability from 45% to 15% and granted
compensation only for 15% disability. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the
disability of the appellant at 45% as assessed by P.W.4/Doctor and granted
compensation for 45% disability. The Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of
Rs.30,000/- towards disability. The Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards disability as claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal has
not awarded any amounts towards loss of income, loss of earning power and
future medical expenses. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain
and sufferings, extra nourishment and transportation are meagre and prayed
for enhancement of compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2014
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal reduced the percentage of
disability assessed by P.W.4/Doctor from 45% to 15% on the ground that
assessment of disability by P.W.4/Doctor appears to be on the higher side.
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 and
he has taken treatment only as out patient. Therefore, the appellant is not
entitled to any amount towards loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal
considering the entire materials on record, has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-
as compensation, which is not meagre. The appellant has not made out any
case for enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.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.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2014
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.4/Doctor examined the appellant and certified that appellant
suffered 45% disability and issued Ex.P11/disability certificate to that effect.
The Tribunal reduced the percentage of disability from 45% to 15% on the
ground that assessment of disability by P.W.4/Doctor appears to be on the
higher side. The Tribunal has given proper reason for reducing the percentage
of disability from 45% to 15%. Hence, the appellant is entitled to
compensation only for 15% disability. The accident is of the year 2010 and a
sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability awarded by the Tribunal is
meagre. Considering the year of accident, the appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. Thus, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal towards disability is enhanced to Rs.45,000/- (Rs.3,000/- X 15%
of 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 loss of earning capacity by adopting multiplier
method.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2014
10.It is the contention of the appellant that at the time of accident, he
was aged 24 years, working as Team Leader in Vodafone, Chennai and was
earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. The appellant has not produced any
documentary evidence to prove his avocation and income. The accident
occurred in the year 2010. Considering the year of accident, age and nature of
work done by the appellant, a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month is fixed as
notional income of the appellant. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the
accident, he would not have attended his work atleast for a period of two
months. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.16,000/-
(Rs.8,000/- X 2 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 pain and sufferings, extra
nourishment and transportation are enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and
Rs.5,000/- respectively as amounts awarded by the Tribunal are meagre.
Considering the nature of injuries and disability suffered by the appellant, he
is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2014
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
No by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Disability 30,000/- 45,000/- Enhanced
2. Pain and sufferings 5,000/- 10,000/- Enhanced
3. Medical expenses 3,000/- 3,000/- Confirmed
4. Transportation 1,000/- 5,000/- Enhanced
5. Extra nourishment 1,000/- 5,000/- Enhanced
6. Loss of Income - 16,000/- Granted
7. Loss of amenities - 10,000/- Granted
Total Rs.40,000/- Rs.94,000/- Enhanced by
Rs.54,000/-
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.40,000/- is hereby enhanced
to Rs.94,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company is 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.5097 of 2010 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2014
withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs.
20.12.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The learned II Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2014
krk
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2014
20.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
