Madras High Court
S.Chakravarthy vs D.Kumar on 22 June, 2021
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2015 &
C.M.P.No.9149 of 2021
S.Chakravarthy ... Appellant
..Vs..
1.D.Kumar
2.Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decreetal order of the learned III
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Court of Small Causes) Chennai in
MCOP.No.1212 of 2006 and dated 09.07.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.K.S.V.Prasad
For Respondent 2 : Mr.S.Arunkumar
R1 – Expate
JUDGMENT
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2015
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned award dated
09.07.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Third Court of
Small Causes, Chennai) in MCOP.No.1212 of 2006.
2. Heard Mr.K.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the Appellant/claimant
and Mr.S.Arun kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent/ Insurance
Company. The first respondent has remained exparte both before the
Tribunal as well as this Court.
3. The Appellant/claimant unsatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal has preferred this Appeal seeking for
enhancement. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
the Appellant/claimant are as follows:
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Loss of Income 9,267/-
Transportation 1,250/-
Extra nourishment 1,000/-
Damage to clothing 450/-
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2015
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Medical Expenses 14,500/-
Pain and suffering 10,000/-
Disability at 30% at Rs.2,000/- 60,000/-
per percentage
Loss of earning capacity 50,000/-
Total 1,46,467/-
4. Before the Tribunal, the Appellant/claimant has filed nine
documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and two witnesses were
examined namely, the Appellant/claimant himself as PW1 and the Doctor
who examined her as PW2. On the side of the second respondent Insurance
Company, neither any document was filed nor any witness examined before
the Tribunal.
5. The accident happened on 07.07.2004. The Appellant/claimant was
a driver at the time of the accident. He has pleaded that he was earning
Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of the accident. However, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,100/- based on the salary certificate which was marked as
Ex.P2 before the Tribunal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2015
6. As a result of an accident caused by a vehicle owned by the first
respondent and insured with the second respondent Insurance Company, the
Appellant/claimant has sustained the following injuries, viz., concussive
head injury, spondylosis of lumber spine, fracture of L3-L4 spine. As seen
from the evidence available on record, the discharge summary issued by the
hospital Ex.P5, the Appellant/claimant has taken only conservative
treatment in the hospital for a period of four days from 08.07.2010 to
10.07.2010.
7. The Doctor (PW2) who examined the Appellant/claimant has
assessed the disability of the Appellant/claimant at 35%. However, the
Tribunal on its own, without any basis has reduced the percentage of
disability to 30% and awarded a compensation of Rs.60,000/- calculated at
Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. This Court is of the considered view
that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant/claimant,
the Tribunal ought not to have reduced the percentage of disability to 30%.
However, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has righlty
awarded Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability as the year of the accident is
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2015
2004. Hence, the assessment of disability by the Doctor (PW2) at 35% is
confirmed by this Court and the compensation towards disability is
enhanced to Rs.70,000/- calculated at Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability
for 35% disability.
8. With regard to the claim of the Appellant/claimant before this
Court that the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier method is
concerned, the same is rejected by this Court in view of the fact that the
Appellant/claimant was hospitalised only for a period of four days and he
had taken only conservative treatment in the hospital. Admittedly, no
surgeries were performed on the Appellant/claimant. Even though in the
oral evidence, the Appellant/claimant had deposed that due to the injuries
sustained by him, he is able to work only for three hours, whereas before the
accident, he was able to work for twenty hours, there is no evidence placed
on record by the Appellant/claimant before the Tribunal to substantiate the
said contention. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
Tribunal has rightly not adopted the multiplier method for assessing the
compensation payable to the Appellant/claimant.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2015
9. However this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal
ought to have awarded a higher compensation towards pain and suffering
and ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of attender charges,
after giving due consideration to the nature of injuries sustained by the
Appellant/claimant and his avocation. This Court after giving due
consideration to the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant/claimant
and his avocation enhances the compensation to the Appellant/claimant
towards pain and suffering from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and in addition
to that, awards a compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of attender
charges.
10. The Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation towards
future medical expenses. This Court after giving due consideration to the
year of the accident awards a compensation of Rs.1,000/- towards Future
medical expenses to the Appellant/claimant.
11. With regard to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
various other heads are concerned, this Court is of the considered view that
the same is a just compensation and there is no scope for interference.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2015
12. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,67,467/- from Rs.1,46,467/- in the following
manner:
Heads Award Amount Amount awarded
by this Court
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
Loss of Income 9,267/- 9,267/-
Transportation 1,250/- 1,250/-
Extra nourishment 1,000/- 1,000/-
Damage to clothing 450/- 450/-
Medical Expenses 14,500/- 14,500/-
Pain and suffering 10,000/- 20,000/-
Disability 60,000/- 70,000/-
Loss of earning capacity 50,000/- 50,000/-
Future Medical Expenses -- 1,000/-
Total 1,46,467/- 1,67,467/-
Conclusion:
13. In the result, this appeal shall stand partly allowed. The Second
Respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount awarded
by this Court i.e. Rs.1,67,467/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim till the date of deposit and costs after
deducting the amount already deposited to the credit of MCOP.No.1212 of
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2015
2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer
the amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.1212 of 2006 to the bank
account of the Appellant/claimant through RTGS within a period of one
week thereafter. The requisite Court fee, if any has to be paid by the
Appellant before receiving the copy of this Judgment. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
22.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
nl
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2015
To
1. The III Court of Small Causes, Chennai
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2015
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl
C.M.A.No.2340 of 2015
22.06.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
