Madras High Court
M.Sajit Basha vs B.Rajendran on 25 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.667 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.667 of 2006
M.Sajit Basha ... Appellant/Claimant
..Vs..
1. B.Rajendran
2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Motor III Party Claims office,
No.38, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. ... Respondents/Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
against the Judgement and decree dated 12.03.2004 made in MCOP.No.71
of 2003 on the file of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court IV,
Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Mahalingam
For Respondent No.1 : No appearance
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
*****
JUDGMENT
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, dated 12.3.2004,
passed by the tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.1,27,700/- along with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.667 of 2006
interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the claimant is before this Court for
enhancement of compensation.
2. It is is the case of the claimant/appellant herein that the
appellant herein has met with an accident on 14.05.2000 at about 10.30
p.m., when he was travelling in a TVS motorcycle bearing registration
No.TN-05 C 1189 as pillion rider at Perambur high road towards west, the
first respondent was riding the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent
manner, hit the autorickshaw bearing registration No.TN-09 2755 which
came from the opposite direction, resulting in the appellant sustained
fracture in the right leg for which surgery was made in K.M.C. Hospital and
he had taken treatment from 15.5.2000 to 15.6.2000, 20.11.2000 to
2.12.2000 26.2.2001 to 16.3.2001 and 11.4.2001 to 26.6.2001. The claimant
filed a claim petitioner before the tribunal, claiming compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- for permanent disability and loss of earning.
3 The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence
Exs.P1 to P.11, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,27,700/- as total compensation
payable by the second respondent/Insurance Company to the claimant
under the following heads:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.667 of 2006
Heads Amount in Rs.
Compensation for 40% disability 40,000/-
(40 x Rs.1000)
Pain and sufferings 80,000/-
Medical bills 2,740/-
Transport & extra nourishment 5,000/-
Total 1,27,740/-
Rounded of 1,27,700/-
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
claimant/appellant 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, appellant claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- for permanent
disability caused due to the accident. On the appellant side, P.W.1 and
P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to P11 were marked to prove that the
claimant sustained permanent disability and also income of the claimant.
However, the tribunal without appreciating the case of the appellant in
proper perspective, awarded a meagre amount to the appellant.
6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.667 of 2006
Insurance Company, the Court below rightly fixed the disability of the
appellant at 40% and awarded compensation to the claimant/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 passed by the tribunal is confirmed. Secondly, the appeal is
against the the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
Admittedly, the appellant sustained fracture in the right leg for which
surgery was made for four times and the appellant had taken treatment in
Govt. hospital for five months as inpatient. Dr.Saichandran who deposed
before the tribunal as P.W.2, has stated that the appellant sustained
grievous injuries at right leg for which surgery was made for four times and
issued disability certificate stating that the appellant sustained 45%
disability. Tribunal has reduced the disability to 40% without any basis.
There is no rational basis adopted by the tribunal in reducing the disability
to 40% and no reason was assigned by the tribunal for reducing 5% disability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.667 of 2006
P.W.2 Dr.Saichandran who assessed the disability of the appellant at 45% is
an expert in the medical field and surgery was made to the appellant for
four times and he had taken treatment for five months. Taking note of the
nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and his disablement, P.W.2
Doctor assessed that the appellant sustained permanent disability at 45%
which is perfectly valid and therefore, on this account, the findings of the
tribunal requires modification.
8. In sofar as other heads are concerned, no amount was
awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income. The claimant / appellant
placed materials before the tribunal to show that he was not employed
during the relevant period. Therefore, it is just and reasonable to fix
notional income of the appellant to compensate loss of income for a period
of six months, by fixing notional income. The appellant also produced a
certificate from the employer that he was working on daily wage basis i.e.
Rs.150/- per day. This Court is of the view that it would be reasonable to
fix Rs.4,000/- as monthly income of the appellant by taking note of the
daily wage employment. On the other heads also, tribunal has not awarded
any amount towards attender charges, loss of amenities. For transportation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.667 of 2006
and extra nourishment, the tribunal has not awarded a fair amount to the
appellant. To that extent, this Court agree with the contention of the
appellant and the compensation awarded by the tribunal is modified on
various heads and awarded as follows:
Heads Compensation Compensation Difference
awarded by the enhanced/ Amount
Tribunal awarded by in Rs.
Rs. this Court
(Rs.)
Disability 45% x 1000 40,000/- 45,000/- 5,000/-
Pain and suffering 80,000/- 80,000/- --
Loss of income 4000 x 6 -- 24,000/- 24,000/-
Medical bills 2,740/- 2,740/- --
Transportation & Extra 5,000/- 5,000/- + 10,000/-
Nourishment 10,000/-
Attender charges -- 10,000/- 10,000/-
Loss of amenities -- 15,000/- 15,000/-
Total : 1,27,740/- 1,91,740/- 64,000/-
Rounded of 1,27,700/- 1,91,700/- 64,000/-
The award passed by the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid 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.1,91,700/- (Rupees one lakh ninety one
thousand seven hundred only) after deducting the amount if already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.667 of 2006
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 eight 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 said 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.667 of 2006
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.667 of 2006
25.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
