Madras High Court
Ashokkumar vs Karunanithi on 8 January, 2021
CMA(MD)No.660 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 08.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M. A(MD)No.660 of 2010
Ashokkumar
.. Appellant
vs.
1.Karunanithi
2.The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
having its Office at
Mayiladurai.
...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgment and decree made in MCOP No.
161 of 2007 dated 24.07.2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (Additional Sub Judge), Kumbakonam.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
For Respondents : Mrs.P.Malini (for R2)
R.1 - Exparte
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.660 of 2010
JUDGMENT
Being dissatisfied with the award of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, passed in MCOP No.161
of 2007 dated 24.07.2009, the claimant has come forward with this
appeal for enhancement of compensation.
2.This is a case of injury. The claim petition was filed seeking
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant
in an accident that took place on 27.07.2006. According to the claimant,
he was pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-49-
S-0990 and the vehicle was hit by a Hyundai car, which came from the
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. The respondents are
the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle and hence, they are liable
to pay the compensation.
3.The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence held that the driver of the speedy car was responsible for the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.660 of 2010
accident. The said finding has become final as no appeal was filed by the
respondents questioning the same.
4.Insofar as the quantum is concerned, according to the claimant,
he suffered fracture in the accident. He has also produced Exs.P.6 and P.
11 to show that he spend Rs.28,500/- towards medical expenses. P.W.2
Dr.Srinivasan gave disability certificate stating that the claimant suffered
26% disability. Ex.P.12 is the disability certificate and Ex.P.13 is the X-
ray. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.66,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
5.The grievance of the appellant/claimant is that the award is very
meager and instead of applying multiplier, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.1,000/- per percentage.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the second
respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the award of the
Tribunal is reasonable and the appellant is not entitled for enhancement.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.660 of 2010
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the materials available on record.
8.In the instant case, the claimant was 35 years old at the relevant
point of time. Though it is contended by the appellant/claimant that he
was an employee in TVS company and he was paid Rs.3,000/- as salary,
but neither a salary certificate nor an identity card were produced to
substantiate the said contention. A perusal of the Judgment of the
Tribunal would show that a sum of Rs.28,500/- was awarded based on
Exs.P.6 to P.11. The appellant/claimant sought compensation for loss of
income, but the Tribunal has rejected the same as it was not proved by
him.
9.It is pertinent to note that the appellant had suffered fracture and
he was under treatment in a hospital for considerable time. P.W.2 and
Ex.12 would prove that the claimant has sustained 26% disability. But
the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.26,000/- by applying Rs.1,000/- per
percentage. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is
entitled to the amount for loss of income during the treatment period and
for permanent disability. Therefore, this Court awards Rs.8,000/- for loss
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.660 of 2010
of income during the treatment period and Rs.52,000/- towards
permanent disability by applying Rs.2,000/- per percentage. Further, Rs.
10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering is enhanced to
Rs.20,000/-. The amounts granted in other heads by the Tribunal are
confirmed. Therefore, the total award of the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.1,00,500/- from Rs.66,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.
10.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, 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 award amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if
any, together with proportionate interest and costs. No costs.
08.01.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
skn
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.660 of 2010
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J
skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M. A(MD)No.660 of 2010
08.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
