Madras High Court
M.Subramaniam vs P. Shanthi on 14 June, 2021
CMA No.2718 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CMA No.2718 of 2016
1. M.Subramaniam ... Appellant
Versus
1. P. Shanthi
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
1st Floor,
Amman Complex,
1360, Erode. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Acts, 1988 to enhance the compensation awarded in the
judgment and decree dated 12.02.2013 made in MCOP No.120 of 2010
on the file of MACT / Sub Court at Namakkal, with interest and cost by
allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.Lokesh
for M/s.Ma.P.Thangavel
For Respondents : Mr.K. Padmanabhan for R2
R1 - Exparte
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of
compensation under the impugned award dated 12.02.2013 passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2718 of 2016
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Namakkal in MCOP
No.120 of 2010.
2. The appellant / claimant had sustained injuries on 22.12.2009 as
a result of an accident caused by a vehicle owned by the first respondent
and insured with the second respondent. The appellant preferred a claim
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Namakkal and
the Tribunal under the impugned award directed the respondents to pay
the appellant / claimant, a compensation of Rs.3,02,100/- together with
interests and costs as detailed hereunder :-
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Permanent disability 50000
(25% x Rs.2,000/- each
percentage)
Medical Bills (Ex.P5) 2,14,100
Pain and suffering 15000
Extra nourishment 5000
Transport expenses 3000
Loss of earnings 15000
(Rs.5,000/- x 3 months)
Total 4,53,896/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2718 of 2016
3. The appellant unsatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal has preferred this appeal seeking for
enhancement.
4. Heard Mr.Lokesh, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.K.Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the second respondent /
Insurance Company. The first respondent was set ex parte before the
Tribunal, hence notice to the first respondent is dispensed with.
5. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award
before the Tribunal.
6. The appellant / claimant, claims to be an Agriculturist, aged 53
years and in his claim petition, he has pleaded that he was earning
Rs.6,000/- p.m. at the time of the accident. However, the Tribunal has
fixed his notional monthly income at Rs.5,000/-. The appellant /
claimant had sustained Crush injuries in his left leg as a result of the
accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2718 of 2016
7. The Doctor (PW2), who examined the appellant / claimant has
assessed his partial and permanent disability at 40% and the disability
certificate was marked as Ex.P9 before the Tribunal. He was hospitalised
for the first spell from 21.12.2009 to 27.01.2010 and underwent three
surgeries on 21.12.2009, 23.12.2009 and 29.12.2009 and was an
inpatient for 37 days, as per Ex.P6, the discharge summary issued by the
hospital. The appellant / claimant was hospitalised for the second spell
from 14.07.2011 to 24.07.2011 and he underwent one surgery on
14.07.2011 and he was an inpatient for 10 days as seen from Ex.P7, the
discharge summary issued by the hospital. Even though the Doctor has
assessed the disability of the appellant / claimant at 40%, the Tribunal
reduced the same to 25% without any basis.
8. After giving due consideration to the nature of the injuries
sustained by the appellant / claimant as detailed supra, this Court is of
the considered view that the Tribunal ought not to have reduced the
disability from 40% to 25%. Therefore, this Court fixes the disability of
the appellant / claimant at 40% as assessed by the Doctor (PW2). The
Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards the
disability suffered by the appellant / claimant, calculated at Rs.2,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2718 of 2016
per percentage for the 25% disability fixed by the Tribunal. Since this
Court enhances the disability of the appellant / claimant to 40% and is
also enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per
percentage of disability, this Court enhances the disability compensation
payable to the appellant / claimant to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 40%)
instead of Rs.50,000/- fixed by the Tribunal.
9. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,14,400/-
towards medical bills as per the medical bills submitted by the appellant /
claimant which were marked as Ex.P5 and the same is confirmed by this
Court.
10. Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
pain and suffering, extra nourishment, the Transportation expenses are
concerned, the same will have to be enhanced. Accordingly, this Court
enhances the same to Rs.20,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/-
respectively.
11. The accident happened in the year 2009. For the purpose of
calculating loss of earnings to the appellant / claimant, the Tribunal has
fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant / claimant at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2718 of 2016
Rs.5,000/- which in the considered view of this Court is low and it has
to be enhanced to Rs.6,000/-.
12. The Tribunal has also calculated loss of earnings to the
appellant / claimant only for a period of three months. As indicated
above, the appellant / claimant has sustained grievous injuries and was
also hospitalised for a long period of time. Therefore, at least for a
period of five months, the appellant / claimant would have been unable to
do his regular work as an Agriculturist. Hence, this Court is of the
considered view that the loss of earnings to the appellant / claimant will
have to be calculated for a period of five months, instead of three months
fixed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of
earning is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.
13. Despite the fact that the appellant / claimant has sustained
grievous injuries and was hospitalised for a long period of time, the
Tribunal failed to award compensation to him towards attender charges
and loss of amenities, which he is legally entitled to as per the settled
law. Accordingly, this Court awards a compensation of Rs.20,000/-
towards attender charges and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2718 of 2016
13. For the foregoing reasons, the award of the Tribunal is hereby
modified in the following manner :
Heads Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Disability 50000 1,20,000
*25% x Rs.2,000/- * #
#40% x Rs.3,000/-
Medical Bills (Ex.P5) 2,14,100 2,14,100
Pain and suffering 15000 20000
Extra nourishment 5000 15000
Transport expenses 3000 10000
Loss of earnings 15000 30000
**(Rs.5,000/- x 3 months) ##
## (Rs.6,000/- x 5 months) **
Attender charges - 20000
Loss of amenities - 10000
Total 3,02,100 4,39,100
14. However, the learned counsel for the second respondent /
Insurance Company vehemently opposes for the aforesaid enhancement,
which is rejected by this Court for the foregoing reasons.
15. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant / claimant,
stands partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,02,100/-
to Rs.4,39,100/-, as indicated above. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2718 of 2016
16. The second respondent / Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the entire award amount as assessed by this Court together with
interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of
realization, less the amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of
MCOP No.120 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Sub Court at Namakkal), 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. Necessary Court fee, if any has to be paid by the
appellant before receiving the copy of this Judgment.
14.06.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
To
1. The Sub Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court at Namakkal.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2718 of 2016
High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
CMA No.2718 of 2016
14.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
