Madras High Court
L. Sabareeswaran vs Bajarang Laxman Jadhav on 1 March, 2021
CMA No.3658 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 01.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA.No.3658 of 2012
L. Sabareeswaran ... Appellant/ Claimant
Vs.
1. Bajarang Laxman Jadhav,
2. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Satara Divisional Office, Granodhar Bhavan, Pavai Nagar,
Satara District 415 002, Maharashtra State.
having its Divisional Office at J.N.St.,
Pondicherry, rep. by its Divisional Manager, Pondicherry.
... Respondents/ Respondents
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and
judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1506 of 2003 by the
Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Pondicherry.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3658 of 2012
For Appellant : Mr.C.Prasanna Venkatesh
For respondents : Mr.M.Krishnamoorty (for R2)
JUDGMENT
Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this court for enhancement of the
compensation.
2. The claimant has filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.23,80,000/- for the injuries
sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 26.02.2003.
3. The brief case of the claimant is as follows: The
claimant was a driver by profession. On 26.02.2003, he had driven a
van bearing registration No.PY-01-E-5934, carrying shoes from
Pondicherry to Bovelly (Mumbai) Maharashtra and while nearing
Wagwadi diversion in Pune Bangalore road, a truck bearing registration
No.MH-04-H-4119 headed the van, thereby he sustained grievous
injuries and also fracture on his knee. According to the claimant, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3658 of 2012
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck was the cause of
accident and since the first respondent/ owner of the vehicle insured his
truck with the second respondent/ insurance company, both of them are
liable to pay compensation.
4. The claim petition was resisted by the insurance
company by filing counter affidavit.
5. Before Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, the claimant
and three other witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW4 and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P55 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no oral and
documentary evidence was adduced.
6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.2,72,000/- to the claimant. The compensation
awarded under various heads are extracted hereunder.
Sl Heads Amount in
No Rs.
1 Partial Permanent Disability 60,000
2 Pain and sufferings and 25,000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3658 of 2012
Sl Heads Amount in
No Rs.
mental agony
3 Loss of income (12x3000) 36,000
4 Medical expenses 1,36,000
5 Extra Nourishment and 15,000
Transportation charges
Total 2,72,000
Not satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
the claimant has filed the present appeal to enhance the compensation.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. I have perused the
materials on record.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was only at the age
of 23 years and due to the accident, his future livelihood is affected
very much, however, the Tribunal has awarded a very meagre amount as
compensation. He further submitted that the claimant has sustained
grievous injuries and fracture on his knee and he was treated as
inpatient for a period of 6 months and till today, he is on regular
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3658 of 2012
treatment. But the Tribunal has awarded compensation towards
"medical bills " only by taking few medical bills and has failed to
consider that the claimant was hospitalised for a period of six months
and was advised to undergo continuous treatment. It is submitted by
him that though the salary certificate was marked as Ex.P54, the
Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income only at Rs.3,000/- . He
also submitted that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered a lot
which caused mental agony, stress and pain and sufferings to him and
he is not able do his work as driver, as done earlier and hence, he
prayed for enhancement of compensation.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance
company submitted the after analysing the evidence and the documents
on record, the Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable
compensation and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal does not
warrant any interference by this court.
10. Now the point for consideration is whether the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be scaled down.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3658 of 2012
11. Point
It is the contention of the appellant/ claimant is that the
accident took place on 26.02.2003 and during the accident, the
claimant has sustained fracture on his knee and multiple grievous
injuries. This fact was not denied by the respondents. The submission
of the appellant is that he was a driver by profession and was earning a
sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and due to the accident, he is not able to
drive and now doing alternative job. As per Ex.P26, the partial
disability suffered by the claimant is assessed at 60%. Taking note of
the fact that the claimant was a driver and at the time of accident, he
possessed driving licence, this court is inclined to grant a sum of
Rs.2000/- per percentage and accordingly a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- is
awarded towards " Partial Permanent Disability". It is not disputed that
the claimant was taking treatment for a period of six months on
different spell and hence it is just and reasonable to award a sum of
Rs.18,000/- towards " Attender's charges" and a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards " Loss of amenities". Considering the fact that the claimant is
not able to do his work as driver, as done earlier, a sum of Rs.50,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3658 of 2012
is awarded towards " Future loss of income". Accordingly, the revised
compensation awarded under various heads is extracted hereunder.
Sl. Heads Compensation Compensation
No Awarded by the enhanced/
Tribunal Awarded by this
court
1 Partial Permanent Disability 60,000 1,20,000
2 Pain and sufferings and 25,000 25,000
mental agony
3 Loss of income (12x3000) 36,000 36,000
4 Medical expenses 1,36,000 1,36,000
5 Extra Nourishment and 15,000 15,000
Transportation charges
6 Attender's charges - 18,000
7 Loss of amenities - 15,000
8 Loss of future income - 50,000
Total 2,72,000 4,15,000
This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
13. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,72,000/- to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3658 of 2012
Rs.4,15,000/- No costs.
(ii) The insurance company is directed to deposit the
revised compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5.%
p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less the
amount if already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) On such deposit being made by the insurance
company, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same, after following
due process of law.
01.03.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/non Speaking order
mst
To
1. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Pondicherry.
2. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3658 of 2012
Satara Divisional Office, Granodhar Bhavan, Pavai Nagar,
Satara District 415 002, Maharashtra State.
having its Divisional Office at J.N.St.,
Pondicherry, rep. by its Divisional Manager, Pondicherry.
3. Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3658 of 2012
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mst
CMA. No.3658 of 2012 and
01.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
