Madras High Court

A.Praveenkumar vs P.Janaki on 15 June, 2021

CMA No.2130 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 15.06.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and
THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2130 of 2018
---
A.Praveenkumar .. Appellant
Versus
1.P.Janaki

2.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited,
No.559, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai-600 018. .. Respondents

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act
1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.04.2018 made in M.C.O.P. No.
5870 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub
Court No. II), Small Causes Court, Chennai.

For Appellant :Mr.K.VaradhaKamaraj

For R2 : Mr. K.Poomalai

For R1 : Set exparte

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
CMA No.2130 of 2018

JUDGMENT

S. KANNAMMAL, J

This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant

for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, (Special Sub Court No. II), Small Causes Court, Chennai, in M.C.O.P.

No. 5870 of 2013 dated 02.04.2018.

2. As per the averments in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, on

07.05.2013 at about 16.30 hrs while the petitioner was proceeding in his

motorcycle bearing registration number TN 31 AT 8455 on the Manjakollai

Main Road, Marudur, a Tractor bearing registration number TN-31 AR 3889

came in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and dashed

against the petitioner's vehicle. In the accident, the petitioner sustained multiple

fractures. The petitioner was a III rd year B.E. Student. He could not attend the

annual examination due to the injuries sustained in the accident. He therefore

filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P No. 5870 of 2013 against the respondents

claiming a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rs.40 Lakhs) as compensation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CMA No.2130 of 2018

3. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/owner of the tractor remained

ex-parte. The claim petition was contested only by the second

respondent/Insurance Company.

4. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter statement

denying the averments made by the claimant in the claim petition. The

Insurance Company also specifically denied the educational qualification and

other particulars furnished by the claimant. It also objected to the amounts

claimed by the claimant under various heads as exorbitant and prayed for

dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the averments in the claim

petition, the claimant examined himself as PW1, one Doctor K.J.Mathiazhagan

was examined as P.W.2 and 24 documents were marked viz., Ex.P.1 to P.24. On

behalf of the respondents in the claim petition, neither any witness was

examined nor any document was marked.

6. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced on the

side of the claimant, the tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident had

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor owned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CMA No.2130 of 2018

by the first respondent. By arriving at such a conclusion the tribunal awarded a

sum of Rs.13,73,700/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the

claimant and directed the second respondent/insurance company to pay the said

compensation amount.

7. As against the award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal has

been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the sum

of Rs.13,73,700/- awarded by the Tribunal in total as compensation as against

the total claim of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rs.40 Lakhs) claimed by the claimant is an

inadequate compensation. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have fixed

the disability as 70% as assessed by the doctor who was examined as P.W.2. It

is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have fixed 100% as loss of

earning power for the appellant and the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the

monthly income as Rs.9,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellant

would submit that the award passed by the Tribunal under the heads of

Attending Charges, Transport, Extra Nourishment, Pain and Suffering and Loss

of Amenities are very meager which needs the interference of this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CMA No.2130 of 2018

9. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company submitted that the award of compensation granted under various

heads to the appellant/claimant is perfectly in order and needs no interference.

10. We have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials

placed on record. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary

evidence, awarded compensation under various heads as under.




                 Sl.No         Head under which the     Amount awarded by
                                  amount is awarded     the Tribunal(in Rs.)
                1           Loss of earning Power       Rs.8,16,480/-
                2           Permanent Disability        Rs.1,80,000/-
                3           Pain and Sufferings         Rs.60,000/-
                4           Transportation              Rs. 8,000/-
                5           Extra-Nourishment           Rs. 25,000/-
                6           Damage to Clothes           Rs.5,000/-
                7           Medical Expenses            Rs. 1,39,129.50 ps/-
                8           Attending Charges           Rs.50,000/-
                9           Loss of Amenities           Rs.60,000/-
                10          Mental Agony to family      Rs.30,000/-
                            Total                       Rs.13,73,609.50/-

11. The claimant was an Engineering student at the time of accident. In

the accident, the claimant sustained fracture in Shaft Femur right, open

segmental tibia and fibula fracture right, Radial styloid right and open wound

right foot. P.W.2/ the doctor, who examined the claimant issued disability https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CMA No.2130 of 2018

certificate as 70% as partial and permanent disability. The Tribunal reduced the

percentage of disability from 70% to 60% on the ground that P.W.2/Doctor is

not the Doctor who treated the appellant. The 2nd respondent-Insurance

Company has not let in any contra evidence to disprove the evidence of

P.W.2/Doctor and Ex.P22/disability certificate. Considering the nature of

injuries sustained by the claimant we are of the view that 70% disability as

given by the doctor can be taken as such. The accident is of the year 2013 and

the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability and

the same is proper. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards

disability is enhanced to Rs.2,10,000/- (Rs.3,000/- X 70% of disability). From

the award passed by the Tribunal it is seen that appellant has taken treatment as

inpatient at Sri Ramachandra hospital for 4 different spells (from 08.05.2013 to

12.08.2013, from 03.09.2013 to 13.09.2013, from 29.04.2014 to 06.05.2014

and from 06.01.2015 to 12.01.2015). Considering the nature of injuries and

period of treatment taken by the appellant, this Court is of the view that the

amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, transportation,

extra nourishment, damage to clothes and attending charges are very meager

and hence, the same needs enhancement. The modified amounts of

compensation is tabulated infra. However, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal

towards loss of earning power, medical expenses, loss of amenities, mental https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CMA No.2130 of 2018

agony to family are confirmed.




                Sl. Head under which Amount awarded Amount awarded             Award
                 N     the amount is   by the Tribunal(in       by this     confirmed
                 o        awarded              Rs.)          Court (in Rs.)      or
                                                                             enhanced
                                                                            or granted
                1 Loss of earning      Rs.8,16,480/-      8,16,480/-        confirmed
                    Power
                2 Permanent Disability Rs.1,80,000/-      Rs.2,10,000/-     enhanced
                3 Pain and Sufferings Rs.60,000/-         Rs.75,000/-       enhanced
                4 Transportation       Rs. 8,000/-        Rs. 12,000/-      enhanced
                5 Extra-Nourishment Rs. 25,000/-          Rs. 50,000/-      enhanced
                6 Damage to Clothes Rs.5,000/-            Rs.6,000/-        enhanced

7 Medical Expenses Rs.1,39,129.50ps/- Rs.1,39,129.50ps/- confirmed 8 Attending Charges Rs.50,000/- Rs.75,000/- enhanced 9 Loss of Amenities Rs.60,000/- Rs.60,000/- confirmed 10 Mental Agony to Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/- confirmed family Total Rs.13,73,609.50/- Rs.14,73,609.5/- Enhanced by Rs.1,00,00 0/-

12. In the result, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award

amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the

amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 5870 of 2013. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CMA No.2130 of 2018

On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award

amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn if any,

by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.

[R.P.S.J.,] [S.K.J.,]

15.06.2021

Index : Yes / No