Saravanan vs Sellappan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3979 Mad

                                                                             C.M.A. No.309 of 2021

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 17.02.2021

                                                         CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                                C.M.A.No.309 of 2021

                    Saravanan
                    rep. By his friend, wife, Parvathi                              .. Appellant
                                                           Vs.

                    1.Sellappan

                    2.Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                      No.6/3 & 6/4, Subramaniapuram,
                      Mohanur,
                      Namakkal District.                                        .. Respondents


                    Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
                    Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2018, made
                    in M.C.O.P. No.905 of 2016, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
                    (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Namakkal.


                                        For Appellant      : Mr.A.Sathishkumar
                                                             for M/s.C.Thangaraju

                                        For Respondents    : Mr.J.Chandran (For R2)

                    _____
                    1/10



http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                               C.M.A. No.309 of 2021

                                                 JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation granted by

the award dated 04.08.2018, made in M.C.O.P. No.905 of 2016, on the file of

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Namakkal.

2.By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well

as the 2nd respondent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission

stage itself.

3.The appellant-claimant represented by his wife Parvathi, filed

M.C.O.P. No.905 of 2016, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal) Namakkal, claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place

on 08.02.2015.

_____

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A. No.309 of 2021

4.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by

the rider of the Motorcycle belonging to the 1 st respondent and directed the

respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,01,800/- as compensation to the appellant.

5.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in the

award dated 04.08.2018, made in M.C.O.P. No.905 of 2016, the appellant

has come out with the present appeal.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the

accident, the appellant suffered grievous injuries in his head resulting blood

clot in his brain and has taken treatment as in-patient at Ganga Hospital,

Coimbatore. P.W.2 Doctor examined the appellant and certified that the

appellant suffered 25% disability. The claim petition has been filed by the wife

of the claimant, contending that the appellant could not do any work and is

bedridden. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the gravity of

the injuries and adopted multiplier method in awarding compensation towards

_____

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A. No.309 of 2021

disability, by fixing 100% disability and applying multiplier '11'. The appellant

is unable to do his day-to-day activities and hence, needs an attendant to look

after his daily needs. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 50 years,

working as a Coolie in a Sand Quarry and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-

per month. The Tribunal erroneously fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.6,000/-

per month as notional income. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards

attendant charges, transportation, loss of income, extra nourishment and pain

and suffering are meagre and prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-

Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal considering the disability

sustained by the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to prove the

functional disability and loss of earning capacity suffered by him, rightly

adopted percentage method to award compensation towards disability. The

amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are not meagre. The

appellant has not made out any case for enhancement of the compensation

and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

_____

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A. No.309 of 2021

8.Heard through video conference the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant as well as the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and perused the

materials available on record.

9.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the appellant

that in the accident, he suffered grievous injuries in his head, resulting blood clot

in his brain. P.W.2 Doctor treated the appellant under conservative management

scheme for the injuries sustained and assessed that the appellant suffered 25%

disability and issued disability certificate to that effect, which is marked as

Ex.P15. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards disability

at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per percentage for 25% disability and the same is

meagre. This Court by the judgment reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 617 [M.

Chinnathambi Vs. S.Deepa and another], fixed a sum of Rs.4,000/- per

percentage of disability for the accident occurred in the year 2014 & 2015 and

a sum of Rs.5,000/- per percentage of disability for the accident occurred from

the year 2016 onwards, due to raise in cost of living. In the present case, the

accident is of the year 2015. In view of the same, a sum of Rs.4,000/- is

_____

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A. No.309 of 2021

awarded per percentage of disability. The appellant failed to prove that he

suffered functional disability and suffered loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal

has given valid reason for not adopting multiplier method. Thus, the amount

awarded by the Tribunal towards disability is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-

[Rs.4,000/- x 25%], at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per percentage for 25% disability.

For the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the appellant has taken

treatment as in-patient at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore from 10.02.2015 to

17.02.2015, for a period of 8 days. Considering the period of treatment taken

and nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, the amounts awarded by the

Tribunal towards extra nourishment and transportation are enhanced to

Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. The Tribunal failed to award any

amount for loss of amenities and damage to clothes. Due to the injuries

suffered in the accident, the appellant would have suffered inconvenience and

discomfort in life. Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of

amenities and Rs.2,000/- towards damage to clothes.

10.It is the contention of the appellant that at the time of accident, he

was working as a Coolie in Sand Quarry and was earning a sum of

_____

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A. No.309 of 2021

Rs.15,000/- per month. He failed to prove the same. In the absence of any

materials, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as notional

income, which is meagre. The accident is of the year 2015. Considering the

year of accident and nature of work done by the appellant, a sum of

Rs.12,000/- per month is fixed as notional income. Due to the injuries

sustained in the accident, the appellant would not have worked atleast for a

period of 5 months. Hence, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss

of income is modified to Rs.60,000- [Rs.12,000/- x 5 months]. 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 confirmed or (Rs) this Court (Rs) enhanced or granted

1. Disability 75,000/- 1,00,000/- Enhanced

2. Pain and suffering 30,000/- 30,000/- Confirmed

3. Medical expenses 69,800/- 69,800/- Confirmed

4. Transportation 5,000/- 10,000/- Enhanced

5. Extra nourishment 10,000/- 15,000/- Enhanced

6. Loss of amenities - 15,000/- Granted

7. Damage to clothes - 2,000/- Granted

_____

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A. No.309 of 2021

8. Loss of income 12,000/- 60,000/- Enhanced Total 2,01,800/- 3,01,800/- Enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-

11.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount awarded

by the Tribunal at Rs.2,01,800/- is enhanced to Rs.3,01,800/- together with

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

deposit. The respondents are directed to deposit the award 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.905 of 2016. 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.

17.02.2021 gsa

To

_____

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A. No.309 of 2021

1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Namakkal.

2.The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court, Madras.

_____

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A. No.309 of 2021

V.M.VELUMANI, J.,

gsa

C.M.A.No.309 of 2021

17.02.2021

_____

http://www.judis.nic.in