Madras High Court
Babu vs Madhusoodhan on 14 June, 2021
C.M.A.No.3530 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.3530 of 2019
Babu ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Madhusoodhan
2.The Manager,
IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company,
28, West Usman Road,
Thiagaraya Nagar, Chennai – 17. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree order dated
15.02.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.253 of 2009, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Thiruvallur.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Baskar
For Respondents : Mr.K.Poomalai for R2
R1 No appearance
JUDGMENT
The claimant is the appellant in this appeal. This appeal has been
filed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 7
C.M.A.No.3530 of 2019
Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur) in
M.C.O.P.No.253 of 2009.
2.By the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.02.2011, the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.86,000/- as compensation under the
following heads:-
Loss of earning Rs. 3,000/-
Transportation Rs. 1,500/-
Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000/-
Damages to Rs. 500/-
clothes
Medical Expenses Rs.25,000/-
Loss of pain and Rs.25,000/-
suffering
Permanent Rs.30,000/-
Disability
Total Rs.86,000/-
3.In this case, the appellant has sought for enhancement of
compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has considered a very low
monthly income of Rs.3,000/- to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards
permanent disability. It is submitted that the nature of injuries as per the
evidence on record indicates that the appellant suffered Grade III B
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 7
C.M.A.No.3530 of 2019
Compound fracture neck of 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal (Wound
Debridement K wire fixation and suturing done)/Antisocial personality
disorder.
4.It is submitted that after the accident, the appellant who was
employed as a driver were unable to get any employment. It is further
submitted that Ex.P9 permanent disability certificate marked through
P.W2 also assessed the permanent disability at 60%. However, the
Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.30,000/-
5.Defending the impugned judgment and decree, the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submits that the
impugned judgment and decree is well reasons and required no
interference.
6.She submits that there is no evidence produced by the appellant
for establishing the appellant was earning a sum of Rs.7,500/-.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 7
C.M.A.No.3530 of 2019
7.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellant and the respondent.
8.It is noticed that the Tribunal has arrived at the notional income
of Rs.3,000/- per month of the appellant. The accident is of the year
2008. The appellant was riding a own motor vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN-20-T-3845. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735 has considered the
notional income of Rs.6,500/- for a vegetable vendor for awarding
compensation in the case of the injury of the year 2008. In my view, the
Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income of the appellant as
Rs.7,500/- considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2008 and
considering the fact, that the appellant was a owner of the motor cycle
and met with an accident while riding its motor cycle. It is unlikely the
person having a meagre monthly income of Rs.3,000/- could was
possessed a motor cycle. Even otherwise, the Tribunal ought to have
considered a slightly higher notional income in the light of the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq Vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 7
C.M.A.No.3530 of 2019
9.Therefore, there shall be a slight enhancement of compensation
by awarding a sum of Rs.60,000 towards injury (permanent disability)
suffered by the appellant and Rs.30,000 towards Loss of income for
income for a period of 4 months at Rs.7,500 x 4. In the result, there will
be a enhancement of Rs.57,000/- towards over all compensation.
10.Accordingly, this appeal stands partly allowed by directing the
2nd respondent/Insurance Company enhanced amount of compensation of
Rs.1,43,000 [86,000 + 57,000] together with interest at 7.5% per annum
from the date of numbering of the claim petition till the date of such
deposit, less any amount already deposited by it, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
11.On such deposit being made by the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw their same
together with interest accrued thereon, less any amount already
withdrawn in the same proportion as was ordered by the Tribunal.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 5 of 7
C.M.A.No.3530 of 2019
12.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands Partly Allowed. No
costs.
14.06.2021
jas
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To:
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Thiruvallur.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madras High Court.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 6 of 7
C.M.A.No.3530 of 2019
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jas
C.M.A.No.3530 of 2019
14.06.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 7 of 7
