Madras High Court
T.S.Pradeep vs The Managing Director on 23 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.2882 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA. No.2882 of 2013
T.S.Pradeep ... Appellant
..Vs..
1.The Managing Director,
M/s.K.P.N.Travels India Ltd.,
Kalaripalayam,
Bangalore-2
2.The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Motor Third Party Claims Office,
No.751, Mount road (Opp. TVS),
III Floor, Chennai-600002.
3.A.Jaya,
W/o K.Arumugam,
4.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Motor Third Party Claim Cell,
Moore Street,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 05.10.2012 made in
M.C.O.P.No.4680 of 2004 on the file of the III Court of Small Causes
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondent No.2 & 4 : Mr. N.B.Surekha
Respondent No.1 & 3 : Notice served
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
C.M.A.No.2882 of 2013
JUDGMENT
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, dated
05.10.2012, passed by the tribunal awarding compensation of
Rs.1,30,000/- 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
23.06.2004 at about 6.00 a.m, the appellant was traveling on the
Chennai - Bangalore highway in a Bus bearing no. KA-38-A-0001 from
Bangalore to Chennai, when the Bus was proceeding near Sriperumbudur
at Pennalur Power Grid, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash
and negligent manner at a high speed and collided with a lorry bearing
Reg.No. MDA-6069 coming in the opposite direction towards vellore.
Both the Bus and the lorry were traveling at a high speed in a rash and
negligent manner caused the accident, thereby causing grievous injury
to the appellant. The appellant filed a claim petition before the tribunal,
claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- .
3. Before the tribunal, on the side of the claimant, P.W.3, the
Petitioner was examined and Ex.P11 to P17 were marked. On the side of
the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were
marked and no material object were placed on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2882 of 2013
4. The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence, has
held that due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of bus
bearing no. KA-38-A-0001, the accident had occurred and directed the
2nd respondent/insurance company to pay the compensation on behalf of
the 1st respondent. The tribunal has awarded Rs.1,30,000/- under
various heads along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date
of petition till realization.
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of income for 3 months 22,500/-
Transportation 3,000/-
Extra Nourishment 3,000/-
Damage to Clothes 500/-
Medical Expenses 91,000/-
Pain and suffering 10,000/-
Total : 1,30,000/-
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company and
perused the materials available on record.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the appellant
sustained grievous injuries and the anterior dislocation of left hip and
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2882 of 2013
therefore the appellant sustained 30% disability. The appellant was not
given an opportunity to mark the disability certificate issued by the
Government Orthopedic surgeon, Royapettah. The Tribunal has filed to
award loss of earning capacity and loss of percentage of disability, even
after proved through the Ex.P16 the license issued by the IRDA and
Ex.P17 Identity card issued by the Avita Life Insurance Company before
the tribunal. However, tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of
Rs.1,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. According to
the appellant, tribunal failed to appreciate the case of the appellant that
he suffered 30% disability. According to him, tribunal has not fixed any
compensation towards disability sustained by the appellant. Considering
the nature of disability, award passed by the tribunal under other heads
are also not adequate. Therefore, seeks enhancement of compensation.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd & 4th
respondents/Insurance Company objected for enhancement of
compensation and submitted that the appellant failed to produce the
disability certificate to substantiate his claim. Therefore, the award
passed by the tribunal is reasonable and fair and does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2882 of 2013
8. Undisputedly, the appellant/claimant in his claim petition has
stated that he suffered 30% disability due to the accident and no
documents were filed before the tribunal to prove his disability. The
tribunal based on the documents and evidence available on record, has
concluded that the claimant/appellant herein is entitled for compensation
of Rs.1,30,000/- . The tribunal has also observed in the award that as
per Ex.P14/Discharge Summary issued by The Bes Hospital Private
Limited, the claimant/appellant herein took treatment as inpatient for a
period of six days from 23.06.2004 to 28.06.2004 for the Anterior
dislocation of left hip. But the tribunal has not awarded any amount
specifically for the injuries.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 4
/Insurance Company that in the absence of disability certificate from the
doctor, the tribunal cannot award any amount under specific head. This
Court finds some force on the contention of the learned counsel for the
respondents 2 & 4 /Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the
respondents 2 & 4 /Insurance Company has not disputed the fact that in
the said accident several passengers along with the appellant herein
were sustained injuries and they were also granted compensation by the
tribunal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2882 of 2013
10. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the
observation made by the tribunal in the award that the claimant has
taken treatment as inpatient for the injuries sustained by him in the said
accident, this Court finds it proper to grant some reasonable amount for
the injuries sustained by the appellant even in the absence of documents
to prove his disability. Accordingly, a consolidated amount of
Rs.10,000/- is granted under the head injuries sustained by the
appellant. Insofar as the compensation awarded by the tribunal under
various heads remains unaltered.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation awarded
by the tribunal at sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,40,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
12. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the entire compensation amount along with interest as modified by this
Court, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2882 of 2013
modified by this Court along interest and costs, after adjusting the
amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications
before the Tribunal.
13. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the
aforesaid extent. No costs.
23.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ak
To
1. The III Judge,
Court of Small Causes
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2882 of 2013
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
ak
CMA.No.2882 of 2013
23.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
