Madras High Court
N.Suresh Kumar @ David vs Dharmalingam on 1 February, 2021
C.M.A. No.1100 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.1100 of 2020
N.Suresh Kumar @ David .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Dharmalingam
(R1 remained exparte before the Tribunal)
2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Third Party Hub,
Silingi Building, No.134, Greams Road,
Murugesanaicker Street,
Chennai 600 006. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2018, made
in M.C.O.P. No.3602 of 2012, on the file of the VI Small Causes Court,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Chennai.
___
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1100 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.K.V.Muthu Visakan
For Respondents : M/s. S. Arunkumar (For R2)
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
This appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation granted
by the award dated 20.09.2018, made in M.C.O.P. No.3602 of 2012, on the
file of the VI Small Causes Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal)
Chennai.
2.The appellant-claimant filed M.C.O.P. No.3602 of 2012, on the file
of the VI Small Causes Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Chennai,
claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by
him in the accident that took place on 15.05.2012.
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 Auto belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd
respondent, as insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay a sum of Rs.81,000/- as
compensation to the appellant.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1100 of 2020
4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in the
award dated 20.09.2018, made in M.C.O.P. No.3602 of 2012, the appellant
has come out with the present appeal.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the
accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and has taken treatment as
out-patient at Kilpauk Medical College Hospital. P.W.2 Doctor examined the
appellant and certified that the appellant suffered 30% disability. The
Tribunal without assigning any reasons, erroneously reduced the percentage
of disability suffered by the appellant to 15% and granted meagre amount as
compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
contended that at the time of accident, the appellant was working as a
Salesman and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the
injuries sustained, the appellant could not do the work as he was doing earlier
and lost his earning power. The Tribunal failed to award compensation by
adopting multiplier method. The Tribunal has fixed only a sum of Rs.8,000/-
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1100 of 2020
per month as notional income and awarded compensation towards loss of
income only for one month. The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards
medical expenses and attendant charges. The amounts awarded by the
Tribunal towards loss of income, pain and suffering, extra nourishment, loss
of amenities, damage to clothes and transportation to the Hospital are meagre
and prayed for enhancement of the compensation.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal considering the nature of
injuries suffered by the appellant and the disability certificate issued by P.W.2
Doctor, which was not supported by any worksheet, rightly reduced the
percentage of disability to 15% and granted compensation. The appellant has
not proved that he suffered functional disability and lost his entire earning
capacity. Hence, he is not entitled to compensation by adopting multiplier
method. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, the
Tribunal awarded compensation under different heads, which are not meagre.
The appellant has not made out any case for enhancement of the
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1100 of 2020
compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.
8.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the appellant
that in the accident, he suffered grievous injuries and has taken treatment at
Kilpauk Medical College Hospital as out-patient. P.W.2 Doctor examined the
appellant and certified that the appellant suffered 30% disability. The Tribunal
reduced the percentage of disability to 15% on the ground that Ex.P5 - disability
certificate cannot be considered as a conclusive proof. The said reasoning of the
Tribunal is erroneous. The 2nd respondent has not let in any contra evidence to
the evidence of P.W.2 Doctor or Ex.P5 – disability certificate. Considering the
evidence of P.W.2 Doctor and the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant,
the disability suffered by the appellant is fixed as 30%. The appellant failed to
prove that he suffered functional disability. Hence, he is not entitled to
compensation by adopting multiplier method and the percentage method adopted
by the Tribunal is in order. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1100 of 2020
disability is enhanced to Rs.90,000/- [Rs.3,000/- x 30%], at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- per percentage for 30% disability. 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. No Description Amount awarded Amount Award
by Tribunal awarded by this confirmed or
(Rs) Court (Rs) enhanced or
granted
1. Disability 45,000/- 90,000/- Enhanced
2. Pain and suffering 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
3. Extra nourishment 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
4. Transportation 2,000/- 2,000/- Confirmed
5. Damage to clothes 1,000/- 1,000/- Confirmed
6. Loss of income 8,000/- 8,000/- Confirmed
7. Loss of amenities 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
Total 81,000/- 1,26,000/- Enhanced by
Rs.45,000/-
9.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount awarded by
the Tribunal at Rs.81,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,26,000/- 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
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1100 of 2020
amount, now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, 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.3602 of 2012. On such deposit, the appellant is
permitted to withdraw the award amount, now determined by this Court,
along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already
withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs.
01.02.2021
gsa
To
1.The VI Small Causes Judge,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section, High Court, Madras.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1100 of 2020
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
C.M.A.No.1100 of 2020
01.02.2021
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
