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
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019
For Respondent : No appearance
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019
respondent/Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.2,03,830/- as
compensation to the appellant.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019
loss of amenities. The appellant has to undergo another plastic surgery and
the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards future medical
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.Though notice has been served on the 2nd respondent and their name
is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the 2nd respondent
either in person or through counsel.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019
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%).
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019
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
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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019
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
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section
High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
kj
C.M.A.No.1807 of 2019
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
