Madras High Court

Dr.P.Elango vs P.K.Duraisamy on 3 March, 2021

C.M.A.No.2614 of 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 03.03.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

C.M.A.No.2614 of 2011

Dr.P.Elango
S/o. Periyasamy ... Appellant

Vs.

1. P.K.Duraisamy
S/o. Kumarasamy

2. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office No.II
No.1272-1273,
Palaniappa Complex,
Mettur Road, Erode.
(R1 set exparte before the Tribunal. Hence
Notice may be dispense with in this appeal) ...Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.300 of
2008 dated 20.10.2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Namakkal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Thangavel
For Respondents : Mr.S.Vadivel for R2.
R1-Exparte

1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2614 of 2011

JUDGMENT

(This case has been heard through video conference)

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the

fair and decretal order dated 20.10.2009 passed in MCOP.No.300 of 2008

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fast

Track Court, Namakkal.

2. The case in brief is as follows:

On 02.06.2007 at about 10.30 p.m., while the petitioner was

travelling in the car bearing Registration No.TN 28 J 4789, at that time, a

Mini Auto bearing Registration No.TN 33 AC 2126, driven by its driver in

a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant, as a result of

which, he sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He was taken for

treatment to C.K.Hospital, Erode and then he was shifted to Ganga

Hospital, Coimbatore for further treatment.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2614 of 2011

3. Mr.M.P.Thangavel, the learned counsel for the

appellant/claimant has submitted his arguments. As per his submissions,

the claimant is a Doctor. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he had

suffered permanent disability. Though the disability certificate was

furnished by which the disability was fixed at 45%, without assigning any

reason, the Tribunal had taken only 20%. Therefore, the total amount

arrived by the Tribunal is too low. Therefore, claimant has preferred this

appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. He also furnished the

calculation sheet wherein he suggested that Rs.2000/- awarded by the

Tribunal for each percentage of disability may be adopted, but for the

entire percentage of disability i.e, 45% as per the disability certificate.

Therefore, if Rs.2,000/- is taken as compensation for each percentage, for

45%, it is Rs.90,000 (45x2000). The medical bills furnished totally were

to the tune of Rs.2,00,413/- but some bills were photo copies. Therefore

the Tribunal had rejected those bills and awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,568/-

only.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2614 of 2011

4. Mr.S.Vadivel, the learned counsel for the

respondent/Insurance Company has vehemently objected stating that the

Tribunal had properly arrived at the compensation. Therefore, according

to him, this appeal lacks merits and has to be dismissed.

5. Point for consideration.

Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhancement of

compensation.

6. Perused the records in claim petition filed by the claimant

before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fast

Track Court, Namakkal in MCOP No.300/2008 and the order passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

7. On perusal of the same, it is found that the amount granted as

compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant is found to be too

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2614 of 2011

low. Therefore, the claimant has filed this Appeal for 45% disability. The

Doctor had not suffered functional disability and not affecting his

avocation as a practising Doctor. In such circumstances, the contention of

the claimant is found to be not acceptable. Any how, considering the

disability, if Rs.2,000/- is taken as compensation for each percentage, for

45%, it is Rs.90,000 (45x2000).

8. He would not have been able to attend to his regular work

during the period of treatment and this Court fixes the monthly income of

the claimant as Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, this court awards a sum of

Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment(i.e., 2

months). For attendant charges no amount was granted. Therefore, this

Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards Attendant Charges. This Court

awards a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities.

9. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant,

this Court enhances the amount awarded under the head “Extra

Nourishment” from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2614 of 2011

10. Since the appellant marked medical bills regarding the

treatment taken as Ex.P.23 for a sum of Rs.2,00,413/, the same is retained

and therefore, the medical expenses are enhanced from 81,913/- to

2,00,413/-.

11. Since the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under all the

other heads are just and fair, the same are hereby confirmed. The break-up

details of the amounts awarded under various heads are as follows:

                            Sl.       Head under which the       Amounts           Amounts
                            No          compensation is        awarded by the    awarded by this
                                            awarded              Tribunal            Court
                             1       Loss of Income                     57,200              90,000
                             2       Medical Expenses                   81,913            1,22,568
                             3       Pain and Sufferings                35,000              35,000
                             4       Extra Nourishment                  10,000              15,000
                             5       Transportation                     10,000              10,000
                             6       Attender Charges                                       10,000
                             7       Loss of earning during                                 30,000
                                     the treatment period
                             8       Loss of amenities                                      10,000
                                     Total                            1,94,113            3,22,568




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                 C.M.A.No.2614 of 2011

12. The point for consideration is answered in favour of the

appellant/claimant and against the Insurance Company/ Respondent.

13. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The

second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount,

which this Court determined in this appeal, to the credit of

M.C.O.P.No.300 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Namakkal, with accrued interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of

deposit along with costs, through RTGS or NEFT method as held by this

Court in (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kannur Vs. Rajesh

and two others) 2016 (1) TN MAC 433, after adjusting the amount, if any,

already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt