Madras High Court

Munikrishnan @ Munikrishnapa vs C. Alamelu on 2 March, 2021

                                                                                  CMA No.3017 of 2010

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      Dated 02.03.2021

                                                            CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

                                                   CMA.No.3017 of 2010

                       Munikrishnan @ Munikrishnapa                    ... Appellant/ Claimant

                                                    Vs.

                       1. C. Alamelu, Proprietor of Nandhi Transport,
                          No.23, Kannaiyan Street,Thirunagar Colony,
                          Erode.

                       2. The National Insuarance Co. Ltd.,
                          No.173, Perunduri Road, Near Collectorate Office,
                          Erode-638 011.

                       3. J. Shekar

                       4. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
                          Beauty Plaza, Balmatta Road, Hampankatta,
                          Mangalore.                      ... Respondents/ Respondents

                                       This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under

                       Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and

                       judgment dated 18.06.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1603 of 2007 by the

                       Chief       Judicial   Magistrate,   Motor    Accident   Claims    Tribunal,

                       Krishnagiri.

                       Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                               CMA No.3017 of 2010

                                      For Appellant          : Mr.V.Kumaravelan

                                      For respondents        : Mr.M.Guruprasad for R1

                                                              Mr.D.Baskar for R2

                                                              Mr.S.Arunkumar for R4

                                                      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.5,00,000/- for the injuries

sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 17.05.2007.

3. The brief case of the claimant is as follows: The

petitioner is a driver by profession and he was working with the third

respondent as driver. On 17.05.2007, the claimant drove a van bearing

registration No.KA-19-B-5410, belonging to the third respondent along

Coimbatore-Mangalore N.H.Road and while nearing Pudhupalayam

Bridge diversion at Perumanallur, an omni bus bearing registration

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA No.3017 of 2010

No.TN-33-AB-6996 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner, thereby the front tyre of the bus had burst and the driver lost

the control of the bus and dashed against the van and due to the impact,

the claimant had sustained severe multiple injuries all over his body and

was admitted to K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore as inpatient from 17.05.3007

to 26.05.2007. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the omni bus was the cause of accident and

since the first respondent/ owner of the vehicle insured her bus with the

second respondent/ insurance company, both of them are liable to pay

compensation. The contention of the claimant is that the third and

fourth respondents i.e. owner of the van and its insurer were impleaded

as formal parties.

4. The claim petition was resisted by the first, second and

fourth respondents by filing their respective counter affidavits.

5. Before Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, the claimant

and one another witness was examined as PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P11 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no oral and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA No.3017 of 2010

documentary evidence was adduced.

6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has

awarded a sum of Rs.2,45,750/- as compensation to the claimant. The

compensation awarded under various heads are extracted hereunder.

                                   Sl              Heads                 Amount in
                                   No                                      Rs.
                                   1    Disability (45 x 2000)             90,000
                                   2    Loss of earnings                   25,000
                                   3    Pain and sufferings                30,000
                                   4    Medical bills                      95,750
                                   5    Transportation     and   extra      5,000
                                        nourishment
                                   Total                    2,45,750

Not satisfied with the 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 companies and I have perused the

materials on record.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA No.3017 of 2010

submitted that the claimant had sustained severe injuries and he had

taken treatment as inpatient for a period of two months and also

undergone for three operations, however, the Tribunal has awarded only

a sum of Rs.3,0,000/- towards "Pain and sufferings". Further he

submitted that by considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, the

Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier method while calculating the

compensation towards " Disability" and " Future earning capacity".

Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent/ 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 enhanced.

11. Point

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA No.3017 of 2010

The specific contention of the appellant is that he sustained

grievous injuries all over his body and he had underwent for three

operations and he has also produced x-rays and the medical records

before the Tribunal to prove the above factum. It is further contended

that the doctor PW2 has given disability certificate by assessing the

disability suffered by the claimant as 52%, however, the Tribunal has

fixed only 45%, without any basis and the same is unsustainable. The

disability certificate was marked as Ex.P10 and to prove the above

document, Dr.S.Krishnakumar, who has given disability certificate, was

examined as PW2. There is no materials placed before the Tribunal to

disbelieve the above said evidence. Therefore, this court safely fixed

the disability suffered by the claimant as 52%.

12. According to the claimant, he was a driver by

profession and he drove the third party vehicle, belonging to the third

respondent and insured with fourth respondent and due to the said

accident, he is unable to continue his work as driver, as done earlier and

hence, his entire career has been spoiled. The contention of the

appellant is that awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage would not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA No.3017 of 2010

be compensated for the loss of future income and hence, the same has to

be enhanced. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing

for the claimant, the disability suffered by the claimant is 52%.\, as per

the disability certificate Ex.P10. The copy of the driving license of the

claimant was marked as Ex.P9 before the Tribunal. Therefore, it is

appropriate for this court to fix Rs.3,000/- per percentage. Further, no

amount was awarded towards "Attender's charges", Loss of Amenities"

and " Damages to cloths". Accordingly, the revised compensation

awarded under various heads is extracted hereunder

Sl.N Heads Compensation Compensation o Awarded by the enhanced/ Tribunal Awarded by this court 1 Disability 90,000 1,56,000 (45 x 2000) (52 x 3000) 2 Loss of earnings 25,000 25,000 3 Pain and sufferings 30,000 30,000 4 Medical bills 95,750 95,750 5 Transportation and extra 5,000 10,000 nourishment 6 Attender's charges - 10,000 7 Loss of amenities - 10,000 8 Damages to cloths - 1,000 Total 2,45,750 3,37,750 This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA No.3017 of 2010

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.2,45,750/- to

Rs.3,37,750/-. No costs.

(ii) The second respondent/insurance company is directed

to deposit the revised compensation of Rs.3,37,750/- 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