Madras High Court

Manjula vs The Managing Director on 6 January, 2021

                                                                             C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 06.01.2021

                                                         CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                                C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019

                   Manjula                                                   .. Appellant


                                                          Vs


                   The Managing Director
                   Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
                   B.T.S.Division, Central Accident Unit
                   Bangalore.                                            .. Respondent
                   Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
                   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2010
                   made in M.C.O.P.No.294 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
                   Tribunal, Principal Sub Court. Krishnagiri.


                                         For Appellant     : Mr.K.Prasanna
                                                           for Mr.M.Sriram


                                         For Respondent    : Mr.V.Ramesh
                                                            for Mr.T.Thiyagarajan



                   1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                             C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019

                                                   JUDGMENT

This matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed for enhancement of

compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 20.04.2010 made in

M.C.O.P.No.294 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Principal Sub Court. Krishnagiri.

2.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.294 of 2007 on the file

of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court. Krishnagiri. She

filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation

for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 23.11.2005.

3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

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

the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent and directed the

respondent/Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.2,03,830/- as

compensation to the appellant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019

4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the

appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the

Tribunal failed to consider that the appellant was a student at the time of

accident and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she could not

continue her studies in Aeronautical Engineering. In the accident, the

appellant suffered grievous injuries in her right foot and ankle joint and

underwent plastic surgery. P.W.2/Doctor after examining the appellant,

certified that the appellant suffered 40% disability. The Tribunal without any

reason, reduced the same to 20%. The Tribunal ought to have adopted

multiplier method to award compensation. The appellant has taken treatment

in the hospital as in-patient from 23.11.2005 to 15.12.2005 for 23 days. The

Tribunal failed to award compensation towards loss of marital prospects and

loss of amenities. The appellant has to undergo another plastic surgery and

the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards future medical

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019

expenses. The appellant has marked the transport bills as Ex.A12. The

Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards transportation. The

Tribunal erred in awarding very less interest at the rate of 6% per annum

instead of granting 9% per annum. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal

under different heads are meagre and prayed for enhancement of

compensation.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

submitted that the Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.2 Doctor,

disability certificate issued by him and ailments suffered by the appellant,

rightly reduced the percentage of disability to 20% and awarded

compensation towards disability by adopting percentage method. The

appellant failed to prove that she suffered functional disability and lost her

earning capacity. Hence, she is not entitled to compensation by adopting

multiplier method. The total compensation 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused

the entire materials available on record.

8.It is the contention of the appellant that in the accident, she suffered

grievous injuries in her right foot and ankle joint. The appellant examined

herself as P.W.1 and deposed to that effect. The Doctor was examined as

P.W.2 to prove the nature of injuries. P.W.2/Doctor after examining the

appellant, certified that the appellant has suffered 40% permanent disability.

P.W.2/Doctor has not deposed that the appellant suffered functional disability

and lost her earning capacity. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to

compensation by adopting multiplier method. The Tribunal reduced the

disability to 20% on the ground that the appellant did not suffer any fracture.

The said reasoning is erroneous. The respondent did not let in any contra

evidence to disprove the evidence of P.W.2/Doctor and the disability assessed

by him. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to compensation for 40%

disability. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards disability

is modified to Rs.80,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 40%).

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019

8(i) According to the appellant, she has taken treatment as in-patient in

Gold Star Hospital, Bangalore, from 23.11.2005 to 15.12.2005 for 23 days

and thereafter, continued her treatment as out-patient. The Tribunal has not

awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities and damage to clothes.

Considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment taken by the

appellant, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1,000/- are awarded towards loss of amenities

and damage to clothes respectively. A sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal towards extra nourishment is meagre and hence, the same is hereby

enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.

8(ii) The contention of the appellant is that she has spent a sum of

Rs.25,050/- towards transportation charges from 23.11.2005 to 23.12.2005

and marked the transport bills as Ex.A12 to prove the same. The Tribunal

rejected the same on the ground that there is no possibility for the appellant to

travel during treatment period. The reason given by the Tribunal for rejecting

Ex.A12/transport bills is not correct. The family members of the appellant

would have spent amounts during the treatment period of the appellant as

well as after discharge from the hospital. Therefore, the appellant is entitled

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019

to a sum of Rs.25,050/- towards transportation as per Ex.A12. The appellant

has not produced any document to prove that she has to undergo another

surgery and therefore, she is not entitled to any compensation towards future

medical expenses. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under all 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   enhanced or
                                                                          (Rs)       granted or
                                                                                      reduced
                   1.          Permanent                  40,000            80,000 Enhanced
                               disability
                   2.          Extra                       5,000            10,000 Enhanced
                               nourishment
                   3.          Pain and                   10,000            10,000 Confirmed
                               suffering
                   4.          Medical                  1,23,830          1,23,830 Confirmed
                               expenses
                   5.          Attendant                  25,000            25,000 Confirmed
                               charges
                   6.          Loss of                            -         10,000 Granted
                               amenities
                   7.          Damage to                          -          1,000 Granted
                               clothes




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                              C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019

                   8.          Transportation                    -         25,050 Granted

                               Total                     2,03,830        2,84,880   Enhanced by
                                                                                     Rs.81,050/-

9.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,03,830/- is hereby

enhanced to Rs.2,84,880/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent/Transport

Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this

Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any,

within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award

amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the

amount if any, already withdrawn. No costs.

06.01.2021

Index : Yes / No kj