Madras High Court
M.Srinivasan vs S.Venkatesan on 6 January, 2021
1 CMA No.56 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.No.56 of 2017
M.Srinivasan ....Appellant
Vs
1.S.Venkatesan
2.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
New No.23, Spurtank Road,
Chennai 600 031. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2016 made
in M.C.O.P.No.221 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, V Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Ms.A.Saloni
for Mr.V.Venkatesan
For Respondents : Mrs.C.Bhuvanasundar for R2
R1-Exparte
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 CMA No.56 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(This case has been heard through Video Conferencing)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the second respondent Insurance Company.
2.The appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of
compensation, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case is that on 07.10.2012 at about 07.15 p.m.,
while the petitioner was crossing Thiruporur Road near Pillaiyarkovil, rider
of a two wheeler without any registration number, being a new vehicle
dashed against the appellant causing fracture injury. The appellant was
taken to the hospital and treated for his fracture proximal tibia right side and
lacerated injuries over the body. The claim petition was filed for a sum of
Rs.6,00,000/- alleging that the claimant was working as an Office Assistant
in Hindustan Institute of Engineering College for a monthly salary of
Rs.6,500/- and due to the fractured injury, he was unable to move and find
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
difficult to stand and walk.
4.The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company through
its counter stating that the injury and the disability averred in the claim
petition are exaggerated and the quantum of compensation claimed is highly
excessive and not in consonance with the injury sustained. Further, the plea
of want of valid driving license to the rider of the offending vehicle was
also raised in order to get exonerated from the liability.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence has held that the
accident has occurred due to the negligence of the motor cycle rider and the
motor cycle is duly insured under the appellant herein. As far as the injury
sustained by the claimant, though the doctor has opined that the disability is
55%, the Tribunal after considering the nature of injury i.e. Fracture
proximal tibia for which right ORIF and bone grafting done, fixed the
disability at 25%. The total sum of Rs.3,07,000/- was awarded under the
following heads:
Compensation under Various Award passed by this
Heads Court
Transportation and Nourishing food Rs. 10,000/-
Attender Charges Rs. 4,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs.1,28,495/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Compensation under Various Award passed by this
Heads Court
Disability Rs. 75,000/-
Loss of earning during the period of Rs. 19,500/-
treatment
Damages for pain, suffering and Rs. 35,000/-
trauma
Loss of amenities Rs. 35,000/-
Total Rs.3,06,995/-
Rounded off to Rs.3,07,000/-
6.The appeal is preferred on the ground that the Tribunal has lower
estimated the disability, while the competent doctor has assessed 55%
disability and the Tribunal has reduced the disability to 25% without any
reason. Further, for transport and extra nourishment, the Tribunal has
awarded only Rs.10,000/- as against the claim of Rs.20,000/-. It is also
contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to
have awarded an additional compensation towards future medical treatment.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would
submit that the claim of the appellant was excessive and exorbitant without
any evidence. The assessment of 55% disability given by the Doctor, who
is a regular Court visitor was not for the whole body but for the part of the
body. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability for the whole
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
body at 25%. In fact, the Tribunal ought to have awarded only Rs.2000/-
per percentage of disability whereas awarded Rs.3000/- per percentage of
disability.
8. On considering the rival submission, this Court finds that the
accident occurred on 07.10.2012. The claimant/appellant was admitted in
the hospital for his injury. He was treated as inpatient on three spells
covering a total period of 21 days. He has produced the medical bill for
Rs.1,28,495/- and the Tribunal has rightly reimbursed the said medical
expenses. As against the pain and suffering and loss of amenity, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.35,000/- each. Towards, the loss of income during
the treatment period, a sum of Rs.19,500/- has been awarded. This Court
finds that compensation under these heads are fair and adequate. As far as
the percentage of disability, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the respondent it is only to the said part of the body and not for the whole
body. The assessment of 25% disability for the fracture proximal tibia is
appropriate and requires no interference.
9. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury and the three
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
spells of treatment in the hospital as inpatient, this Court is of the opinion
that the claimant/appellant deserves additional compensation of Rs.5000/-
towards transport and nourishment and Rs.2,500/- towards attender charges
except an addition of Rs.7,500/- in total under the above two heads, in all
other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
10. Accordingly, the award of Rs.3,07,000/- is enhanced to
Rs.3,14,500/- with 7.5% p.a. from the date of numbering the petition (i.e.,
09.01.2013) till the date of deposit. The respondent Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the award amount within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is
permitted to withdraw the same on appropriate application.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No order as to costs.
06.01.2021
Speaking/Non Speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Index :Yes/No
vri
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
V Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
Vri
CMA No.56 of 2017
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
