Madras High Court
P.Ramachandran @ Chinnapillai vs A.Raja on 8 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.318 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA No.318 of 2012
P.Ramachandran @ Chinnapillai ... Appellant
..vs..
1.A.Raja,
S/o Andisamy,
2.P.Selvaraj,
S/o Palanisamy,
3.The Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd,
Head Office,
Zenith House, Keshavrao Khadye Marg,
Opp. Race Course, Mahalakshmi,
Mumbai-400034. ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
against the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2011 made in
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.318 of 2012
M.C.O.P.No.134 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Additional District Judge and FTC-1, Erode.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Nalliyappan
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.Sreevidhya
For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Notice unserved
----
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Physical Hearing".
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, dated
10.08.2011, passed by the tribunal awarding compensation of
Rs.1,35,700/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, the
claimant is before this Court for enhancement of compensation.
2. It is the case of the claimant/appellant herein that on
20.07.2007 at about 12.30 p.m, the appellant was standing at the extreme
left side of the Saliyankattu Pallam to Kodumudi road, at that time a
tractor bearing no. TN-33-AH-3213 laden with sugar cane from
Saliyankattu Pallam towards Kodumudi driven by the 1st Respondent in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.318 of 2012
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant and caused
grievous injury. The appellant was immediately taken to the Govt.
Hospital, sivagiri where after underwent first aid and then admitted to
Govt. Headquarters Hospital, Erode where underwent treatment as
inpatient and then admitted in Govt. Hospital, Cuddalore as inpatient.
The appellant filed a claim petition before the tribunal, claiming
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries and disability sustained by
the appellant.
3. Before the Tribunal, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 were
examined and Exhibits P1 to P12 were marked on the side of the
claimants whereas R.W.1 & R.W.2 were examined and exhibits R1 & R2
were marked on the side of the respondent Insurance Company.
4. After analyzing both oral and documentary evidences, the
tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent's vehicle
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.318 of 2012
and being the insurer of the said offending vehicle, directed the 3rd
respondent/ insurance company to pay the compensation of Rs.1,35,700/-
as total compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the
date of petition till realization.
4. Aggrieved over the same, the claimant/ appellant has
preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the
claimant was working as Sugar cane cutter and he sustained fracture and
his right thigh bone was broken into several pieces, hence he is not able
to do his regular work as before. Considering the same, the tribunal
ought to have been adopted 100% disability, but the tribunal have fixed
only 48.6% disability. Furthermore, the tribunal failed to award
compensation under the heads of attendant charges, transportation
expenses, future loss of Income, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of
life, etc. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the tribunal required
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.318 of 2012
to be enhanced.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd
respondent /insurance company denied the mode of accident as narrated
by the appellant/claimant and also denied the negligence on the part of
the driver of the insured vehicle. Furthermore, the amount awarded
under each heads by the tribunal are based on the settled principles of
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. Hence the
quantum arrived at by the Tribunal does not require any interference by
this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/ Insurance Company
and perused the materials available on record.
8. The main contention of the apellant is that the tribunal has not
awarded adequate amount for the disability sustained by the claimant. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.318 of 2012
is seen from the records, the doctor was examined as PW2, he deposed
that due to the said accident, the claimant had sustained bone fracutre in
his right femur and undergone surgery. The doctor also deposed that
initially a rod was fixed in his right femur and later the said rod was
removed. Due to the said surgery length of his right leg was reduced by
4 cms. PW2/Doctor after detailed assessment of the disabilities, issued
the Partial Permanent Disability Certificate/Ex.A11 mentioining the
disability at 48.6%. The tribunal has accepted the said disability
certificate issued by the doctor/PW2 and granted the compensation by
fixing Rs.2000/- per percentage under the head Partial Permenant
Disability at Rs.97,200/-. Since, the tribunal has considered and
accepted the entire disability assesed by the doctor/PW2 and granted
compensation, the appellant/claimant cannot claim compensation beyond
the disability assessed by the doctor. Therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant with regard to considering the disability
at 100% is not sustainable and the same is rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.318 of 2012
9. Insofar as the compensation awarded under other heads are
concerned, the tribunal by observing the fact that due to the injuries, the
claimant would have taken rest at least for a period of three months,
awarded Rs.13,500/- fixing Rs.4500/- per month. The said compensation
under the head 'loss of income during treatment period' is not excessive,
therefore the same is confirmed. It is seen from the award that the
tribunal failed to grant compensation for transport expenses and
attendant charges. Since the disability and injuries were not disputed, it
would be appropriate to grant some reasonable amount under the said
heads. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards 'Transport Expenses'
and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards 'Attendant Charges' are granted.
Likewise, the sum awarded by the tribunal under the head 'Pain and
Suffering' and Extra Nourishment' is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- and
Rs.10,000/- respectively. Thus, the compensation under various heads
modified by this Court is as follows;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.318 of 2012
Sl.No Heads Compensation Compensation
awarded by the modified by
tribunal this Court
Rs. Rs
1 Partial Permanent 97,200 97,200
Disability
2 Pain and Suffering 20,000 25,000
3 Transport Expenses ... 5,000
4 Attendant Charges ... 20,000
5 Loss of income 13,500 13,500
during the treatment (4500 x 3)
period
6 Extra Nourishment 5000 10,000
Total 1,35,700/- 1,70,700/-
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed, by enhancing the total amount of compensation from
Rs.1,35,700/- to Rs.1,70,700/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
11. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the entire
enhanced compensation amount, as modifed by this Court, along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.318 of 2012
date of deposit, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period
of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On
such deposit, the appellant /claimant is permitted to withdraw the
compensation as modified by this Court along interest, after adjusting the
amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications
before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently
08.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ak
To
1. The Additional District Judge (FTC-I)
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal)
Erode.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.318 of 2012
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
ak
CMA.No.318 of 2012
08.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
