Madras High Court
Arumugam vs Baalaraj on 14 July, 2021
C.M.A.No.1763 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.1763 of 2016
Arumugam ...Appellant
vs.
1.Baalaraj
2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Third Party Claims Office,
Co-Operative Building,
No.38, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 108.
… Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.12.2012 and made in
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.603/2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV
Additional District Judge, Ponneri.
For Appellant : Mr.F.Terry Chellaraja
For Respondents : R1 – exparte
Mr.C.Paranthaman for R2
JUDGMENT
(This case was heard through Video Conferencing)
This appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of
compensation under the impugned Award dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri in MCOP.No.603 of
2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1763 of 2016
2.Heard Mr.F.Terry Chellaraja, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr.C.Paranthaman, learned counsel for the second respondent.
3.The Appellant/claimant unsatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal has preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement.
4.The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
Appellant/claimant under the impugned Award are as follows:
Heads Amount awarded by the
Tribunal
Permanent disability Rs.1,50,000
Pain and Suffering Rs.15,000
Transportation, extra nourishment Rs.15,000
and medical expenses
Total Rs.1,80,000/-
5.The Appellant/claimant has sustained the following grievous injuries as a
result of an accident which happened on 11.09.2006 caused by a vehicle owned by
the first respondent and insured with the second respondent:
(a) Left frontal compound depressed fracture
(b) Excision of depressed future
(c) Abrasion left hand
(d) Head and Eye injuries
(e) Multiple injuries all over his body.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1763 of 2016
6.The Appellant/claimant was hospitalized due to the injuries sustained by him
as a result of the accident between (a) 11.09.2006 and 19.09.2006, (b) 10.10.2006
and 19.09.2006 and (c) 11.02.2008 and 10.03.2008.
7.Before the Tribunal, the Appellant/claimant has filed 17 documents which
were marked as Exs.P1 to P17 which included the discharge summaries issued by the
respective hospitals for the period of his hospitalization and also Ex.P10 to prove
that the Appellant/claimant has been taking continuous treatment even after getting
discharged from the hospital.
8.The main grievance of the Appellant/claimant before the Tribunal is that the
Tribunal failed to adopt the multiplier method for the purpose of assessing his loss of
earning capacity but instead has erroneously awarded a disability compensation on
percentage basis.
9.Learned counsel for the Appellant drew the attention of this Court to various
exhibits as well as findings of the Tribunal under the impugned Award. He also drew
the attention of this Court to the deposition of PW1 (Appellant/claimant) and
deposition of the Doctor who examined the Appellant/claimant (PW2) and would
submit that the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant/claimant has not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1763 of 2016
disputed by the respondents before the Tribunal. He would also submit that as seen
from the injuries, the Appellant/claimant has sustained grievous injuries in his head
as well as his eyes which has been recorded by the Doctor in his disability certificate
as well as in the deposition of the Appellant/claimant as well as the Doctor before the
Tribunal.
10.This Court has also perused and examined the cross-examination of PW1
and PW2 by the second respondent Insurance Company before the Tribunal. With
regard to the injuries which the Appellant/claimant has pleaded in his pleadings as
well as in his deposition, the second respondent Insurance Company has also not put
any question to the Appellant/claimant as seen from their cross-examinations.
11.The discharge summaries issued by the respective hospitals has also proved
long period of hospitalization of the Appellant/claimant as a result of the grievous
injuries sustained by him due to the accident. He was hospitalized for the period
between (a) 11.09.2006 and 19.09.2006, (b) 10.10.2006 and 19.09.2006 and (c)
11.02.2008 and 10.03.2008.
12.The Tribunal has failed to take note of all these undisputed factors while
assessing the compensation payable to the Appellant/claimant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1763 of 2016
13.The Appellant/claimant is a carpenter by profession and his avocation has
also not been disputed by the respondents before the Tribunal. As a carpenter, the
injuries referred to supra which the Appellant/claimant has sustained would have
certainly prevented him from doing his avocation in future.
14.All the aforementioned factors were not considered by the Tribunal and
therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the disability compensation ought
not to have been fixed by the Tribunal on percentage basis but instead, the Tribunal
ought to have assessed the loss of earning capacity to the Appellant/claimant by
adopting the multiplier method. Therefore, this Court sets aside the disability
compensation. But instead compensation is awarded towards loss of earning capacity
by adopting the multiplier method. For the purpose of adopting multiplier method,
monthly income of the Appellant/claimant will have to be assessed as the Tribunal
has not assessed the same under the impugned Award.
15.Being a carpenter, this Court is of the considered view that in the year
2006, the Appellant/claimant would have earned minimum of Rs.4,000/- per month
at the time of the accident. Accordingly, this Court fixes monthly income of the
Appellant/claimant at Rs.4,000/- for the purpose of assessing the loss of earning
capacity of the Appellant/claimant. This Court after setting aside the disability
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1763 of 2016
compensation fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,50,000/- awards a compensation of
Rs.2,52,000/- to the Appellant/claimant towards loss of earning capacity as detailed
hereunder:
Loss of earning capacity = Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 35/100 x15 = Rs.2,52,000/-
16.This Court assesses the whole body disability of the Appellant/claimant at
35% based on the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant/claimant as indicated
supra at 35% though the same has not been assessed by the Tribunal under the
impugned Award.
17.Even though, learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance
Company vehemently opposes the adoption of multiplier method by this Court, the
same is rejected for the foregoing reasons in view of the fact that the injuries
sustained by the Appellant/claimant are grievous in nature which has resulted in
hospitalization for a very long period of time and it would have incapacitated the
Appellant/claimant from working as a carpenter in the future.
18.With regard to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads
transportation, extra nourishment and medical expenses at Rs.15,000/- are
concerned, the same is on the lower side and it has to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1763 of 2016
each as per the settled practice. The Tribunal has awarded a lesser compensation of
Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and it has to be enhanced. Accordingly, this
Court awards a compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. However,
the Tribunal has failed to Award any compensation towards loss of amenities and
attender charges which the Appellant/claimant is legally entitled to as per the settled
practice. This Court awards a compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of
amenities. Insofar as the compensation towards attender charges is concerned, this
Court awards a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
19.This Court also awards a compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the
Appellant/claimant towards damage to clothing in accordance with the settled
practice.
20.For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced from Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs.3,53,000/- by this Court as detailed hereunder:
Heads Amount Enhanced/
awarded by modified by this
the Tribunal Court
Permanent disability Rs.1,50,000 Rs.2,52,000
(Rs.4,000 x
12x35/100x15)
Pain and Suffering Rs.15,000 Rs.30,000
Loss of amenities - Rs.30,000
Transportation, extra nourishment Rs.15,000 Rs.30,000/-
and medical expenses (Rs.10,000 each)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1763 of 2016
Heads Amount Enhanced/
awarded by modified by this
the Tribunal Court
Attender charges - Rs.10,000
Damage to clothing - Rs.1,000
Total Rs.1,80,000/- Rs.3,53,000/-
21.In the result, the appeal is allowed. The second respondent is directed to
deposit the modified award amount of Rs.3,53,000/- together with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization, after deducting
the amount already deposited if any, to the credit of MCOP No.603 of 2006 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount
directly to the bank account of the appellant /claimant, through RTGS, within a
period of two weeks thereafter. The requisite Court fee, if any shall be paid by the
Appellant before receiving the copy of this Judgment. No costs.
14.07.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
pam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1763 of 2016
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1763 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
pam
C.M.A.No.1763 of 2016
14.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
