Madras High Court
C.Kesavamurthy vs V.Kavitha on 23 December, 2021
C.M.A.No.2996 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.2996 of 2014
C.Kesavamurthy .. Appellant
Vs.
1.V.Kavitha
2.Raguram Reddy
3.The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
D.O. VIII, 22.D.V.G. Road,
V.C.Plaza, Basavangudi,
Bangalore – 560 004. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
28.12.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.1275 of 2010 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.N.U.Prasanna
for Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan
For RR 1 & 2 : No appearance
For R3 : Mr.S.Arunkumar
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2996 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 28.12.2012 made in
M.C.O.P.No.1275 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Krishnagiri.
2.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1275 of 2010 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court,
Krishnagiri. He filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident that took place on 15.11.2007.
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 lorry belonging to 1st respondent and directed the
respondents 1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.2,42,170/- as
compensation to the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2996 of 2014
4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the
accident, the appellant sustained 7 X 6 extension with anatametical expenses
below the right knee, right leg upper 1/3 tibia exposing 5 X 5 bone deep
lacerations and multiple injuries all over the body. P.W.3/Doctor examined
the appellant and certified that appellant suffered 55% disability and issued
Ex.A12/disability certificate to that effect. The Tribunal without giving any
valid reason, reduced the percentage of disability to 50% and awarded
compensation only for 50% disability. The Tribunal ought to have awarded
compensation for 55% disability. At the time of accident, the appellant was
aged 25 years, earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month by running Bajaj
Service Unit and also doing weaving production of silk. Due to the injuries
sustained by the appellant in the accident, he could not continue his work as
he was doing earlier. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded
compensation towards loss of earning by adopting multiplier method. The
amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, extra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2996 of 2014
nourishment and transportation are meagre. The Tribunal has not awarded
any amount towards loss of amenities and future medical expenses and
prayed for enhancement of compensation.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-
Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal considering the evidence of
P.W.3/Doctor and nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, reduced the
percentage of disability from 55% to 50%. Hence, the appellant is not entitled
to compensation for 55% disability. The appellant has not proved that he
suffered functional disability or lost his earning capacity. Hence, he is not
entitled to any compensation towards loss of income by adopting multiplier
method. The Tribunal considering the entire materials on record, has awarded
a sum of Rs.2,42,170/- as compensation to the appellant and the same 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 respondents 1 & 2 and their
names are printed in the cause list, there is no representation for them, either
in person or through counsel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2996 of 2014
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company and
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 7 X 6 extension with
anatametical expenses below the right knee, right leg upper 1/3 tibia exposing
5 X 5 bone deep lacerations and multiple injuries all over the body. To prove
the same, the appellant examined Dr.M.Devendiran as P.W.3. P.W.3/Doctor
examined the appellant and certified that appellant suffered 55% disability
and issued Ex.A12/disability certificate to that effect. The Tribunal
considering the evidence of P.W.3/Doctor and nature of injuries sustained by
the appellant, reduced the percentage of disability to 50% and awarded
compensation only for 50% disability. The Tribunal has not given any valid
reason for reducing the percentage of disability from 55% to 50%. Further,
the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company has not let in any contra evidence to
disprove the evidence of P.W.3/Doctor and Ex.A12/disability certificate. The
appellant has not proved that he suffered functional disability and lost his
earning capacity. Hence, he is not entitled to any compensation towards
future loss of income by adopting multiplier method. Therefore, the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2996 of 2014
is entitled to compensation for 55% of disability by adopting percentage
method. The accident is of the year 2007 and a sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal per percentage of disability is not meagre. Thus, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards disability is enhanced to
Rs.1,10,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 55% of disability).
10.It is the contention of the appellant that at the time of accident, he
was aged 25 years, earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month by running Bajaj
Service Unit and also doing weaving production of silk. The Tribunal
considering the nature of injuries, disability and period of treatment, has
awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during treatment
period. Considering the nature of work done by the appellant and nature of
injuries suffered by him, this Court is of the view that the appellant would not
have attended his work for a period of two months. Therefore, the amount
awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-
(Rs.10,000/- X 2) by fixing monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. Considering the
nature of injuries, period of treatment taken and disability suffered by the
appellant, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment
and attendant charges are enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each as the amounts
awarded by the Tribunal are meagre. The appellant has not produced any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2996 of 2014
medical records to show that he requires further medical treatment. Hence, he
is not entitled to any amount towards future medical expenses. 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:
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
No by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Disability 1,00,000/- 1,10,000/- Enhanced
2. Pain and sufferings 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
3. Medical expenses 1,06,172/- 1,06,172/- Confirmed
4. Transportation 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
5. Attendant charges 5,000/- 10,000/- Enhanced
6. Extra nourishment 5,000/- 10,000/- Enhanced
7. Loss of Income 10,000/- 20,000/- Enhanced
8. Damages to clothes 1,000/- 1,000/- Confirmed
Total Rs.2,42,172/- Rs.2,72,172/- Enhanced by
Rounded off to Rounded off to Rs.30,000/-
Rs.2,42,170/- Rs.2,72,170/-
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,42,170/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.2,72,170/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondents 1 to 3
are jointly and severally directed to deposit the award amount now
determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2996 of 2014
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.1275 of 2010 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court,
Krishnagiri. 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 withdrawn by making necessary applications
before the Tribunal. It is made clear that the appellant is not entitled to any
interest on the award amount for the delay period as per the order of this
Court dated 23.09.2014 made in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in C.M.A.SR.No.8533 of
2014. No costs.
23.12.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2996 of 2014
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.2996 of 2014
23.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
