Madras High Court
Padmanabhan vs Palanisamy on 6 July, 2021
C.M.A.No.2122 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A.No.2122 of 2014
Padmanabhan .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Palanisamy
2.The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Jerom Building First Floor,
Port Station Road,
Trichy - 2. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
28.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.598 of 2011 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Perambalur.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Mani
For R2 : Mrs.N.B.Surekha
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2122 of 2014
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid” mode.
2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of
compensation granted by the award dated 28.06.2013 made in
M.C.O.P.No.598 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court, Perambalur.
3.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.598 of 2011 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Perambalur. He filed the
above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation
for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on
06.04.2011.
4.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 tractor belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.4,79,195/- as
compensation to the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2122 of 2014
5.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the
accident the appellant suffered multiple grievous injuries all over the body.
P.W.2/Doctor examined the appellant and certified that the appellant suffered
60% disability and issued Ex.P10/disability certificate to that effect. The
Tribunal awarded a meagre sum of Rs.87,000/- towards disability at the rate
of Rs.1,500/- per percentage of disability. Due to the injuries sustained by the
appellant in the accident, he lost his earning capacity. The Tribunal ought to
have adopted multiplier method for awarding compensation for loss of
earning capacity. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 24 years
was working as a Agricultural Worker and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-
per month. But the Tribunal awarded a meagre sum of Rs.10,000/- towards
loss of income to the appellant. Due to the injuries sustained by the appellant,
he could not continue his work as he was doing earlier. The Tribunal ought to
have awarded more compensation for loss of income. The appellant has
taken treatment in the KMC Hospital, Trichy as inpatient for 27 days from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2122 of 2014
07.04.2011 to 03.05.2011. The Tribunal has not awarded any amounts
towards attender charges and loss of amenities and prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal accepted the disability
certificate issued by P.W.2/Doctor and awarded a sum of Rs.87,000/- for 58%
disability at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per percentage of disability and the same is
not meagre. The appellant has not produced any material evidence to prove
his avocation and income. In the absence of any material evidence with
regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of income, which is not meagre. The appellant has not suffered
any functional disability and hence, he is not entitled to any compensation
towards loss of earning capacity. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under
different heads are not meagre. The appellant has not made out any case for
enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and
perused the entire materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2122 of 2014
9.From the materials available on record, it is seen that it is the case of
the appellant that in the accident he sustained multiple grievous injuries all
over the body. P.W.2/Doctor examined the appellant and certified that
appellant suffered 60% disability and issued Ex.P10/disability certificate to
that effect. The Tribunal reduced the percentage of disability from 60% to
58% on the ground that P.W.2/Doctor has not assessed the percentage of
disability for the whole body and he is not the Doctor who treated the
appellant. P.W.2/Doctor has not produced the working sheet for arriving at
the quantum of disability. The reason given by the Tribunal for reducing the
percentage of disability from 60% to 58% is proper but a sum of Rs.1,500/-
per percentage of disability awarded by the Tribunal is meagre. The accident
is of the year 2011. A reasonable amount of Rs.3,500/- is awarded per
percentage of disability. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
towards disability is modified to Rs.2,03,000/- (Rs.3,500/- X 58% disability).
The appellant has not proved that he suffered functional disability and lost his
earning capacity. Hence, he is not entitled to any amount towards loss of
earning capacity by adopting multiplier method.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2122 of 2014
10.It is the contention of the appellant that at the time of accident, he
was working as an Agricultural Worker and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-
per month. Except oral evidence, the appellant has not produced any material
evidence to prove his avocation and income. In the absence of any material
evidence with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income. The accident is of the year 2011. The
cost of living has increased enormously and salary of even unskilled workers
has increased substantially. Hence, a reasonable amount of Rs.30,000/- is
enhanced towards loss of income. The appellant has taken treatment in the
KMC Hospital, Trichy as inpatient for 27 days from 07.04.2011 to
03.05.2011. The Tribunal has not awarded any amounts towards attendant
charges and loss of amenities. Considering the nature of injuries and period of
treatment taken by the appellant, a reasonable amount of Rs.5,000/- is
awarded towards attendant charges and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss
of amenities. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under 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.2122 of 2014
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
No by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Disability 87,000/- 2,03,000/- Enhanced
2. Pain and sufferings 30,000/- 30,000/- Confirmed
3. Extra nourishment 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
4. Damages to clothes 2,000/- 2,000/- Confirmed
5. Medical expenses 3,19,995/- 3,19,995/- Confirmed
6. Transportation 25,000/- 25,000/- Confirmed
expenses
7. Attendent charges - 5,000/- Granted
8. Loss of amenities - 15,000/- Granted
9. Loss of income 10,000/- 30,000/- Enhanced
Total Rs.4,78,995/- Rs.6,34,995/- Enhanced by
Rs.1,56,000/-
Though the total compensation comes to Rs.4,78,995/- the Tribunal has
wrongly calculated the compensation as Rs.4,79,195/-.
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.4,78,995/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.6,34,995/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company 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 six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.598 of 2011 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Perambalur. On such deposit, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2122 of 2014
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 by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs.
06.07.2021
mtl
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Perambalur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2122 of 2014
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
mtl
C.M.A.No.2122 of 2014
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
