Madras High Court
M.Devadoss vs Rajendra Prasad Chaparala on 10 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.1134 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
C.M.A.No.1134 of 2013
M.Devadoss ... Appellant
..Vs..
1.Rajendra Prasad Chaparala
2.HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Raheja Towers
No.177, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002. ... Respondents
*[R2, is amended as per the order of this Court
dated 10.02.2021 by allowing the memo,
dated 10.02.2021.]
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in O.P.No.2945 of 2008
dated 23.07.2012 on the file of the VI Judge, Small Causes Court,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1134 of 2013
For Appellant : Mr.K.A.Ravindran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arunkumar for R2
R1-Notice unserved
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the
judgment and decree in O.P.No.2945 of 2008 dated 23.07.2012 on
the file of the VI Judge, Small Causes Court, (Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
2. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that on
20.11.2007 at about 5.00 a.m., the appellant/claimant was walking
on the Rajiv Gandhi Road from South to North direction. At that
time, a Car bearing Reg.No.TN-09-AJ-9309 came behind the
appellant/claimant in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against him, thereby he sustained grievous injuries. It is the further
case of the appellant/claimant that he worked as an Electrician
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1134 of 2013
Helper and earned Rs.150/- per day at the time of the accident.
Hence, he claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation as
against the first respondent/owner of the Car and the second
respondent/ Insurance Company.
3. To prove the claim the appellant/claimant examined
himself as PW1 besides examining PW2, Doctor who assessed the
claimant and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the
Insurance Company neither any oral evidence was let in nor
documents were marked.
4. On appreciation of materials on record, the Tribunal
found that the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant
are simple in nature and hence, for the pain and suffering,
transportation to hospital and loss of earning, a consolidated sum of
Rs.20,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1134 of 2013
The Tribunal further held that the first respondent's Car bearing
Reg.No.TN-09-AJ-9309 was responsible for the accident and its
insurer/the second respondent, is liable to pay the compensation to
the appellant. Challenging the said award, the appellant/claimant has
preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/
claimant, the appellant had sustained injuries over right temporal
region of scalp and ligamental tear over right ankle and PW2, Doctor
also assessed 40% partial permanent disability. Hence, the Tribunal
ought to have taken the multiplier method and granted award instead
of awarding a consolidated payment of Rs.20,000/-, which is also
very meagre.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/
Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal on considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1134 of 2013
oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants has
rightly fixed the compensation amount to the appellant/claimant.
Hence, the same needs no interference by this Court.
7. This Court considered the rival submissions and
perused the materials available on record.
8. PW2, Doctor who assessed the appellant/claimant,
gave disability certificate for 40%, but from the records produced by
the appellant/claimant, it is seen that the appellant did not suffer any
bone injury. Further, he had not established that due to the disability,
he could not continue his job as he was doing earlier. Hence, the
claim of the appellant/claimant that he suffered 40% disability could
not be accepted. However, it is an admitted fact that the appellant
sustained injuries and admitted as in-patient and took treatment for
two days in the Government Hospital. Hence, for the injuries
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1134 of 2013
sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal had awarded only a sum of
Rs.20,000/- as consolidated compensation, which appears to be on
the lower side. Therefore, the same needs to be enhanced properly.
Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to increase the consolidated
compensation to the appellant/claimant at Rs.40,000/-.
9. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed by enhancing the consolidated compensation amount to
Rs.40,000/- [Rupees forty thousand only] from Rs.20,000/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the
date of payment. The second respondent/ Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the award amount as determined above, less the
amount if any already deposited, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit
being made, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the
award amount, less the amount if any already withdrawn by filing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1134 of 2013
necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellant/claimant is
directed to pay necessary court fee, if any, on the enhanced
compensation amount. No costs.
10.02.2021
(2/2)
Index : Yes/ No
Internet : Yes/ No
dna
To
1.The VI Judge, Small Causes Court,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
2.HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Raheja Towers
No.177, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1134 of 2013
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
dna
C.M.A.No.1134 of 2013
(2/2)
10.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
