Madras High Court
S.V.Sriram vs The Managing Director on 9 July, 2021
C.M.A. No.2245 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 09.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A. No.2245 of 2014
S.V.Sriram .. Appellant
Versus
1. The Managing Director,
KPN Travels India Limited,
No.20/1, Swamy Complex, A.V. Road,
Kalasipalayam, Bangalore 01.
2. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch No.1,
No.32, Promanadu Road, Cantonment,
Trichy 620 001.
3. A.Jaya
4. The Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Vellore District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 31.08.2009 made in
MCOP No.224 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Court, Krishnagiri.
For appellant : Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan
For respondents
for R2 : Mr.S.Vadivel
for R4 : Mr.S.Dhakshina Moorthy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/9
C.M.A. No.2245 of 2014
JUDGMENT
The appeal is heard through video conferencing.
2. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Krishnagiri, in
MCOP No.224 of 2005, dated 31.08.2009, the present appeal has been filed by
the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount.
3. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that on 23.06.2004, at about
6 am, he was travelling in the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-38A-0001
from Hosur to Chennai belonging to the first respondent and insured with the
second respondent/Insurance Company. When the first respondent's Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-38A-0001 was nearing Pennalur Power Grid, the
driver of the said Bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit against
the third respondent's Lorry bearing Registration No.MDA 6069, which was
coming from the opposite direction. Subsequently, another Bus bearing
Registration No.TN-25-A-5127 came behind the first respondent's Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-38A-0001 and hit the Bus. Due to the accident, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2245 of 2014
claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was given first aid treatment at
G.S.Hospital, Chennai and then admitted in Apollo Hospital and a surgery was
done on his right leg.
4. It is the further case of the claimant that he was working as Senior
Engineer in Material Planning and Imports in Hindustan Motors at Hosur and
drawing a salary of Rs.19,418/-. After the accident, he could not perform his
duties with full efficiency. Hence, he made a claim for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-
as compensation.
5. The said claim petition was resisted by the second
respondent/National Insurance Company by filing a counter statement denying
the age, occupation and income of the claimant. It is their specific contention
that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the third respondent's Lorry bearing Registration No.MDA-6069.
Further, the first respondent's Bus bearing Registration No.KA-38A-0001 was
used against its permit and hence, the second respondent/National Insurance
Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant indemnifying the
owner of the said Bus. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2245 of 2014
6. The fourth respondent/New India Assurance Company, which is the
insurer of the Lorry bearing Registration No.MDA 6069, has filed a detailed
counter statement and submitted that the driver of the first respondent's Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-38A-0001 drove the Bus in a rash and negligent
manner and hit against the third respondent Lorry and caused the accident.
Hence, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against them.
7. In order to prove the claim on the side of the claimant, he examined
himself as PW1, besides examining two other witnesses as PW2 & 3 and
marked Exs.P1 to P30. On the side of the Insurance Company, one D.Manivel
was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 & R2 were marked.
8. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, came to the
conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the first respondent's Bus bearing Registration No.KA-38A-
0001. By coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal passed an award for a sum
of Rs.1,40,000/- and directed the second respondent/National Insurance
Company to pay the said amount. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under
various heads are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2245 of 2014
S.No. Heads under which amounts are awarded Amount in Rs.
by the Tribunal
1. Permanent Disability 90,000
2. Transport Expenses 15,000
3. Future Medical Expenses 25,000
4. Loss of Articles and Clothes 5,000
5. Extra Nourishment 5,000
Total 1,40,000
9. Now, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that
due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injury on his right thigh
and hence, he could not even walk or stand for a long time. Therefore, he
could not continue his job. In view of the same, the Tribunal ought to have
adopted multiplier method, while calculating compensation under the head
“permanent disability”, instead of awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage
of disability for 45%.
10. The learned counsel for the claimant further contended that he was
hospitalised for the period from 23.06.2004 to 05.07.2004 and after his
discharge also, he took bed-rest for nearly 2 months. Hence, the Tribunal
ought to have awarded amount under the head “Loss of Income”, but the
Tribunal failed to do so. He further submitted that the amounts awarded by the
Tribunal under all the other heads are also not proper and the same needs
enhancement.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2245 of 2014
respondent/National Insurance Company and the fourth respondent/New India
Assurance Company made their submissions supporting the award passed by
the Tribunal.
12. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
13. On account of the accident, the claimant sustained severe injury and
hence, i) a surgery was performed on his right leg and ii) open reduction and
DHS fixation over right hip with ligament reconstruction right hip joint, was
done. PW2 Doctor assessed the claimant and fixed disability at 45%. This
Court finds that the above injuries are not permanent and PW2 Doctor also
assessed disability only at 45%, and therefore, the question of awarding
amount under the head 'permanent disability' by applying multiplier method,
does not arise. Hence, we are not inclined to consider the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant/claimant on this aspect of the matter.
14. However, the claimant could not attend his work for some time, and
hence, this Court is of the view that it is just and proper to award a sum of
Rs.30,000/- under the head “Loss of Income” as lump sum amount.
15. Since the claimant suffered severe injuries and admitted in hospital
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2245 of 2014
for a long time, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- under each of
the following heads, viz., “Attender Charges” and “Loss of Amenities”.
Similarly, another sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the head “Pain and
Sufferings”.
16. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under all the other heads are
just and proper and hence, they are confirmed. Thus, the total compensation
payable to the claimant is re-calculated as tabulated below:
S. Heads under which amounts Amount awarded by Amount awarded
No. are awarded by the Tribunal the Tribunal in Rs. by this Court in Rs.
1. Permanent Disability 90,000 90,000
2. Transport Expenses 15,000 15,000
3. Future Medical Expenses 25,000 25,000
4. Loss of Articles and Clothes 5,000 5,000
5. Extra Nourishment 5,000 5,000
6. Attender Charges - 5,000
7. Loss of Amenities - 5,000
8. Pain and Sufferings - 20,000
9. Loss of Income - 30,000
Total 1,40,000 2,00,000
17. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal is hereby enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), which
shall carry interest at 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date of
payment. The second respondent/National Insurance Company is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2245 of 2014
deposit the total compensation awarded by this Court before the Tribunal, after
adjusting the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. The appellant/claimant
shall pay necessary Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation.
18. With the above observations and directions, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
09.07.2021
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
pvs
To
1. The Additional District Court, Krishnagiri/
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.2245 of 2014
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
pvs
C.M.A. No.2245 of 2014
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
