Madras High Court
K.Manjula vs S.Suguna on 28 June, 2021
C.M.A.No.4289 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A.No.4289 of 2019
K.Manjula .. Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Suguna
2.Sriram General Insurance Company Limited,
66, IInd Floor, City Centre Complex,
Thirumalaipillai Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
27.02.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.4378 of 2009 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Ramkumar
For R2 : Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy
JUDGMENT
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of
compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 27.02.2014 made in
C.M.A.No.4289 of 2019
M.C.O.P.No.4378 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court No.I, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.4378 of 2009 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Small
Causes Court, Chennai. She filed the above said claim petition, claiming a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the
accident that took place on 24.05.2009.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the rider of the motorcycle belonging to the 1 st respondent and directed the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,87,000/- as
compensation to the appellant.
4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
C.M.A.No.4289 of 2019
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the
accident the appellant sustained grievous injury on left arm, left leg, head
injury, left tibia deformity fracture, pelvis fracture and multiple injuries all
over the body. P.W.2/Doctor examined the appellant and certified that the
appellant suffered 60% disability and issued Ex.P9/disability certificate to
that effect. The Tribunal without giving any valid reason, reduced the
percentage of disability from 60% to 50% and awarded compensation only
for 50% disability. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for
60% disability at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability instead of
granting Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. At the time of accident, the
appellant was aged 45 years, was doing Tailoring Work in Export Cloth
Stitching and was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal
has fixed a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as notional income of the appellant
and awarded compensation for loss of income only for six months. The
Tribunal ought to have fixed a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as notional
income of the appellant and awarded compensation for loss of income. The
amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, transportation
and extra nourishment are meagre and prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
C.M.A.No.4289 of 2019
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal considering the medical
records, oral and documentary evidence, fixed the percentage of disability of
the appellant at 50% and the Tribunal has given valid reason for the same.
Hence, the appellant is not entitled to compensation for 60% disability. The
appellant has not produced any material evidence to prove her avocation and
income. In the absence of any material evidence with regard to avocation and
income, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as notional income
of the appellant and awarded compensation for loss of income for six months
and the same is not meagre. The Tribunal considering the entire materials on
record, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,87,000/- as compensation to the appellant
and the same is not meagre. The appellant has not made out any case for
enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and
perused the entire materials on record.
8.From the materials available on record, it is seen that in the accident
the appellant sustained grievous injury on left arm, left leg, head injury, left
C.M.A.No.4289 of 2019
tibia deformity fracture, pelvis fracture and multiple injuries all over the
body. P.W.2/Doctor examined the appellant and certified that the appellant
suffered 60% disability and issued Ex.P9/disability certificate to that effect.
The Tribunal fixed the percentage of disability of the appellant at 50% after
perusing the medical records, oral and documentary evidence. The 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company has not let in any contra evidence to the
evidence of P.W.2/Doctor and Ex.P9/disability certificate. The Tribunal has
not given any valid reason for reducing the percentage of disability.
Therefore, the appellant is entitled to compensation for 60% disability. The
accident is of the year 2009 and a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of
disability awarded by the Tribunal is proper. Thus, the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal towards disability is enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X
60% disability).
9.It is the contention of the appellant that at the time of accident, she
was aged 45 years, was doing Tailoring Work in Export Cloth Stitching and
was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. The appellant has not filed any
document to prove her avocation and income. In the absence of any material
evidence with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal fixed a sum of
Rs.4,500/- per month as notional income of the appellant and the same is
C.M.A.No.4289 of 2019
meagre. Considering the year of accident, age and nature of work done by the
appellant, a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as claimed by the appellant is fixed
as her notional income. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
towards loss of income is modified to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.6,000/- X 6 months).
The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges and loss
of amenities. Considering the treatment taken and nature of injuries sustained
by the appellant, she is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards
attendant charges and loss of amenities respectively. The amounts awarded by
the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, medical expenses, transportation
and extra nourishment are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby
confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as
follows:
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
No by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Disability 1,00,000/- 1,20,000/- Enhanced
2. Pain and sufferings 25,000/- 25,000/- Confirmed
3. Extra nourishment 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
4. Medical expenses 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
5. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
6. Loss of Income 27,000/- 36,000/- Enhanced
7. Attendant charges - 10,000/- Granted
8. Loss of amenities - 10,000/- Granted
Total Rs.1,87,000/- Rs.2,36,000/- Enhanced by
Rs.49,000/-
C.M.A.No.4289 of 2019
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,87,000/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.2,36,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2 nd 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.4378 of 2009 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Small Causes Court,
Chennai. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award
amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the
amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary applications before
the Tribunal. No costs.
28.06.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
C.M.A.No.4289 of 2019
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
krk
To
1.The Special Subordinate Judge No.I,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
C.M.A.No.4289 of 2019
28.06.2021
