Madras High Court
M.Sekar vs M.Ravi on 25 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.3212 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3212 of 2011
M.Sekar ... Appellant/Claimant
..Vs..
1. M.Ravi
2. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.1576, Visweshvariah Road,
P.B.No.34, Mndya – 571 401
Karnataka. ... Respondents/Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
against the Judgement and decree dated 17.02.2011 made in
MACT.OP.No.2598 of 2006 on the file of VI Small Causes Court (Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.Prasanna for
Mr.M.Sriram
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy
*****
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3212 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the
tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.1,34,183/- along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum, the claimant is before this Court for enhancement
of compensation.
2. It is is the case of the claimant/appellant herein that on
30.10.2004 at about 4.00 p.m., the claimant/appellant herein met with an
accident when he was walking on the left side of the road at Sunapura
Village near to the gate within Hagalur police station limit in Malavalli Taluk
and Mandya District, a Maxi Cab van bearing Registration No.KA11 9559
belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent was
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, at an uncontrollable
speed, without adhering to the traffic rules and sounding horn, came in the
opposite direction i.e. From Alagoor side towards Sathanur side and hit the
appellant, resulting in the claimant sustained fracture on the right leg, right
shoulder and multiple injuries. On a complaint, a criminal case was
registered against the driver of the van in Cr.No.125 of 2004 under Sec.279,
337 of Hagalur Police station. The claimant filed a claim petitioner before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3212 of 2011
the tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for permanent
disability and loss of earnings.
3 The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence
Exs.P1 to P.8, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,34,183/- as total compensation
payable by the second respondent/Insurance Company to the claimant
under the following heads:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Compensation for 45% disability 90,000/-
(45 x Rs.2000)
Loss of Income 13,500/-
Pain and sufferings 20,000/-
Medical bills 3,683/-
Transport,expenses on attenders 7,000/-
& extra nourishment
Total 1,34,183/-
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
claimant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/
Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.
5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, the claimant sustained fracture on right thigh and right shoulder
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3212 of 2011
and multiple injuries in the aforesaid accident. He was admitted in Bowring
Hospital, Bangalore and had taken treatment from 30.10.2004 to
26.11.2004. P.W.2 Dr.D.V.Gandhi who examined the appellant, upon
analyzing X-ray and investigation chart, assessed the disability of the
claimant as 60% permanent disability and gave Ex.A6 Disability certificate to
the claimant and deposed before the Court below to support the claim of
the appellant for the injuries sustained by him. The appellant also
produced documents Ex.A1 to A5. However, the tribunal without
considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A6 disability certificate, fixed the
disability as 40% permanent disability and awarded Rs.2,000/- per
percentage which comes to Rs.90,000/- towards permanent disability.
According to the counsel for the appellant, the said finding of the tribunal is
irrational, unfounded and the same has to be modified. Apart from that the
tribunal has awarded compensation towards pain and sufferings, medical
bills, etc. and the tribunal also awarded compensation for loss of income for
a period of three months at the rate of Rs.4,500/- x 3 = Rs.13,500/-.
Therefore, the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation
awarded by the tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3212 of 2011
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company stoutly objected the contention of the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, by stating that the Court below rightly fixed the
compensation amount to the appellant, based on the oral and documentary
evidence led by the appellant. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere
with the award passed by the tribunal.
7. Firstly, there is no dispute with regard to liability is
concerned. The dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation
awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, in sofar as the liability is concerned,
the award of the tribunal is confirmed. Admittedly, the appellant sustained
fracture in the right leg for which the Doctor who examined the appellant
assessed the disability as 60% permanent disability. Doctor who deposed
before the tribunal as P.W.2, upon analyzing Ex.A2, A3, A5, A7 and A8
assessed the disability of the appellant as 60%. This Court has gone through
the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 during cross examination, has admitted that
the claimant sustained fracture on the right thigh bone for which P.W.2
fixed disability at 40% and 10% disability on the clavical bone. Therefore,
P.W.2 Dr. Gandhi himself admitted that he assessed 40% disability on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3212 of 2011
right leg. Based on the said evidence of P.W.2, the Court below has rightly
fixed the disability of the appellant as 45%. The appellant has not placed
any other materials in support of his contention that the appellant has
sustained 60% disability. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the
said finding of the tribunal.
8. In sofar as the other heads are concerned, according to the
learned counsel for the appellant, tribunal has awarded meagre amount
which requires enhancement. To that extent, the compensation awarded
by the tribunal is modified on various heads and awarded as follows:
Heads Compensation Compensation Difference
awarded by the enhanced/ Amount in
Tribunal awarded by this Rs.
Rs. Court (Rs.)
Disability 45% x 2000 90,000/- 90,000/- --
Loss of Income 13,500/- 13,500/- --
Pain & suffering 20,000/- 20,000/- --
Medical bills 3,683/- 3,683/- --
Transport, expenses on 7,000/- 5,000/- + 13,000/-
attenders & extra 10,000/- +
nourishment 5,000/-
Loss of amenities -- 10,000/- 10,000/-
Total : 1,34,183/- 1,57,183/- 23,000/-
Rounded of 1,57,000/-
The compensation awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to the aforesaid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3212 of 2011
extent. Except the above modification, the award passed by the tribunal is
confirmed.
9. The second respondent/Insurance company is directed to
deposit the award amount of Rs.1,57,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty seven
thousand only) after deducting the amount if already deposited before the
tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of
petition till realization before the tribunal within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On such deposit being made
by the respondent Insurance company, the appellant/claimant is permitted
to withdraw the amount by filing appropriate application.
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
25.01.2021
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vaan
To
1. The VI Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chennai.
2. The The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.1576, Visweshvariah Road, P.B.No.34, Mndya – 571 401, Karnataka.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3212 of 2011
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3212 of 2011
25.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
