Madras High Court

Murugan vs Terre Des Homes Care Trust on 21 January, 2021

                                                              1

                                      In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

                                                Dated: 21.01.2021

                                                      Coram

                                   The Honourable Mr. Justice D.KRISHNA KUMAR


                                              C.M.A.No.2942 of 2012



                     Murugan                                           ... Appellant

                                                     ..Vs..


                     1.Terre Des Homes Care Trust,
                       No.1/65, Kongarapattu Salai,
                       Vallam Village & Post,
                       Senji Taluk.

                     2.Kalle Khan

                     3.The Branch Manager,
                       The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                       No.75, Krishnan Street,
                       Tiruvannamalai.

                     4.The Manager,
                       Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                       No.25/26, Prince Tower,
                       Ground Floor,
                       College Road,
                       Nungambakkam,
                       Chennai-600 006.                               ... Respondents




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                               2

                     Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed
                     by       the    learned   Principal     Sub       Judge,   Tiruvannamalai   in
                     M.A.C.T.O.P.No.46 of 2006 dated 08.11.2010.


                                    For Appellant               : Mrs.A.Subadra

                                    For Respondent-3            : Mr.Elveero Ravindran
                                                                      & Mr.K.Vinod

                                    For Respondent-4            : Mr.R.V.Sivaraj


                                                    JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal/learned Principal Sub Judge, (MACT),

Tiruvannamalai in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.46 of 2006 dated 08.11.2010,

the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

a) On 07.02.2005 at about 5.30 p.m., while the petitioner was

proceeding as a pillion rider with one Sathish near Perumbakkam

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Junction Road near Tiruvannamalai met with an accident caused by

the first respondent herein who drove the Omni bus in a rash and

negligent manner causing grievous injuries to the appellant herein.

In view of the same, he has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal

claiming a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation.

b) Before the Tribunal, the witnesses P.W.1 & P.W.2 and P1 to

P7 were marked as exhibits and witness RW1 and Ex.R1 was

marked on the side of the claimant and respondent respectively.

The Tribunal after analysing the oral and documentary evidence,

came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's

vehicle, which was insured with the third respondent Insurance

Company and directed the third respondent/Insurance Company

therein to deposit a sum of Rs.96,000/- with 7.5% p.a. interest as

compensation to the claimant and exonerated the second and fourth

respondent therein.

c) The break-up details of the award amount passed by the

Tribunal is as follows:-




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/


                           Serial No.                         Heads                        Amount (Rs.)
                      1                   Loss of income due to disability           70,000
                      2                   Loss of income during treatment period     15,000
                      3                   Transportation                              2,000
                      4                   Extra nourishment                           2,000
                      5                   Attendant benefits                          2,000
                      6                   Pain & sufferings                           5,000
                                          Total                                      96,000

4. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/claimant has

preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted

that the Tribunal had erred in awarding adequate compensation for

35% disability sustained by the claimant due to the accident and

also fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3000/- which is

meagre and ought to have fixed the monthly income at Rs.6000/-

as claimed by the appellant and hence pleaded interference by this

Court. He also submitted that the Tribunal had failed to fix

reasonable amounts under the other heads and needs

enhancement.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company/third respondent herein submitted that in respect of 35%

disability, the Tribunal had rightly adopted the percentage method

and granted Rs.70,000/- as there is no specific plea in regard to

future loss of income by the claimant. He further submitted that the

Tribunal had rightly awarded the amounts under the other heads

and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal warrants no

interference.

7. Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel

on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

8. The findings of the Tribunal in fixing the liability on the part

of first and third respondents and directed the third respondent

Insurance Company who is the insurer of the first respondent's

vehicle to pay the compensation is accepted by this Court. The

Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- for 35% disability

suffered by the appellant/Claimant due to the accident that took

place on 07.02.2005, taking into account Rs.2000/- per percentage

disability is accepted by this Court as there is no material to prove

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

the future loss of income by the appellant/claimant. Since there is

no supporting document to prove the earning of the claimant as

Rs.6000/- per month, the Tribunal had fixed the notional income at

Rs.3000/- and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

income during the treatment period for five months, which

according to this Court is reasonable and warrants no interference.

In respect of the other heads, considering the nature of injuries

sustained by the appellant/claimant and the treatment taken by the

appellant, this Court enhances the amount under the other heads

namely, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings,

Rs.10,000/- towards attendant benefits and Rs.5,000/- each under

transportation & extra nourishment respectively. In fine, the award

of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified to Rs.1,25,000/-

with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of petition till the date of

realisation. The break-up details of the award amount passed by

this Court is as follows:-

                                   Serial No.                Heads                 Amount (Rs.)
                      1                            Loss of income due to 35% 70,000
                                                   disability
                      2                            Loss of income during the   15,000
                                                   treatment period
                      3                            Pain & sufferings           20,000
                      4                            Attendant benefits          10,000



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/


                                   Serial No.            Heads               Amount (Rs.)
                      5                         Transportation           5,000
                      6                         Extra nourishment        5,000
                                                Total                  1,25,000

9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in

part. The Insurance Company/third respondent herein is directed to

deposit the entire/balance amount with 7.5% p.a. interest from the

date of petition till the date of realisation to the credit of

M.C.A.T.O.P.No.46 of 2006, Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai,

within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is

entitled to withdraw the compensation amount, less the amount

already withdraw if any, on filing appropriate petition before the

Tribunal. There shall be no orders as to costs.

21.01.2021

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No