Madras High Court
P.Agni vs M.Ponnusamy on 16 July, 2021
C.M.A.No.699 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.699 of 2016
P.Agni ... Appellant
Vs
1.M.Ponnusamy
2.The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.34 & 35, Nungambakkam High Road, III-Floor,
Chennai - 34 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree made in MCOP.No.4208 of
2011 dated 07.02.2013 on the file of the V-Small Cause Judge, Chennai-
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.Anand and Suryas
For Respondent 2 : Ms.R.Sree Vidhya
For Respondent 1 : Exparte
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.699 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(This case is heard through Video Conferencing)
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation under the impugned Award dated 07.02.2013
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Court of Small Causes,
Chennai) in MCOP.No.4208 of 2011.
2. The Appellant/claimant unsatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.4208 of 2011 has
preferred this Appeal seeking for enhancement. The details of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Appellant/claimant in
MCOP.No.4208 of 2011 are as follows:
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Loss of earning 18,000/-
Transport to Hospital 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,500/-
Damage to clothes 500/-
Pain and suffering 15,000/-
Disability 80,000/-
(40 x 2000)
Total 1,21,000/-
3. The Appellant/claimant sustained the following injuries on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.699 of 2016
02.01.2011 as a result of an accident caused by a vehicle owned by the first
respondent and insured with the second respondent viz., (a) Fracture of right
clavical and left clavical and (b) multiple injuries all over the body.
4. Before the Tribunal, the Appellant/claimant has filed documents
which were marked as exhibits and two witnesses were examined on his
side namely the Appellant/claimant himself as PW1 and the Doctor who
examined him as PW6. On the side of the second respondent insurance
company neither any document was filed nor any witness examined, before
the Tribunal.
5. The Doctor PW6 has assessed the disability for the injuries
sustained by the Appellant in his right clavical at 30% and for the injuries
sustained by him in his left clavical at 30%. The Appellant/claimant even
though hospitalised as seen from the discharge summary which was marked
as Ex.P5 before the Tribunal, has taken only conservative treatment in the
hospital. No surgery was performed on him as a result of the injuries. The
Tribunal after taking into consideration the disability certificate of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.699 of 2016
Appellant/claimant issued by the Doctor (PW6), has assessed the disability
at 40% and has awarded disability compensation of Rs.80,000/- calculated
at Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. The Tribunal has rightly not
adopted the multiplier method while assessing the compensation based on
the materials and evidence available on record. However, this Court is of the
considered view that the accident having happened in the year 2011, the
Tribunal ought to have assessed the disability compensation at Rs.3,000/-
per percentage of disability instead of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of
disability. Accordingly, this court enhances the disability compensation to
the Appellant/claimant to Rs.1,20,000/- calculated at Rs.3,000/- per
percentage of disability instead of Rs.80,000/- calculated at Rs.2,000/- per
percentage of disability for 40% disability.
6. The Appellant/claimant was an auto driver at the time of the
accident. He has sustained injuries in his left and right clavicals and also
sustained simple injuries all over his body and was hospitalised for a period
of one week. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.18,000/- on
lumpsum basis to the Appellant/claimant towards loss of earning which in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.699 of 2016
the considered view of this court is low and it has to be enhanced. Having
sustained injuries in his left and right clavicals, this Court is of the
considered view that there at least for a period of four months, the
Appellant/claimant could have been unable to do his regular avocation as an
auto driver. Therefore, this Court enhances the compensation towards loss
of earning to the Appellant/claimant from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.
7. Similarly, the Tribunal has also awarded a lesser compensation
towards transportation, Extra nourishment and damage to clothing. The
Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards
Transportation, Rs.2,500/- towards Extra nourishment and Rs.500/- towards
damage to clothing which is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and
Rs.1,000/- respectively by this court.
8. The Tribunal has erroneously failed to award any compensation
towards loss of amenities to the Appellant/claimant which he is legally
entitled to as per the settled practice. After giving due consideration to the
nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant/claimant and his avocation,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.699 of 2016
this Court awards a compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities.
9. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards
pain and suffering which in the considered view of this Court is a correct
assessment and the same is confirmed by this Court.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,21,000/- to Rs.1,86,000/- in the following
manner:
Heads Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of earning 18,000/- 25,000/-
Transport to Hospital 5,000/- 10,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,500/- 10,000/-
Damage to clothes 500/- 1,000/-
Pain and suffering 15,000/- 15,000/-
Disability 80,000/- 1,20,000/-
(40 x 2000)
Loss of amenities -- 5,000/-
Total 1,21,000/- 1,86,000/-
Conclusion:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.699 of 2016
11. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed by
enhancing the award amount from Rs.1,21,000/- to Rs.1,86,000/-. The
second respondent Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced
award amount, after deducting the amount already deposited if any, together
with interest and costs to the credit of MCOP.No.4208 of 2011 within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On
such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall transfer the amount lying to the
credit of MCOP.No.4208 of 2011 to the bank account of the
Appellant/claimant through RTGS within a period of one week thereafter.
No costs.
16.07.2021
nl
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To
1. The V-Small Cause Judge, Chennai
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.699 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl
C.M.A.No.699 of 2016
16.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
