Madras High Court
Subramanian @ Balasubramanian vs The Managing Director on 9 March, 2021
C.M.A(MD)No.1534 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 09.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD)No.1534 of 2010
Subramanian @ Balasubramanian
.. Appellant
vs.
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Kumbakonam (Division 2),
Periyamilaguparai,
Trichy.
...Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.2008
made in MCOP No.1868 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Siddharthan
For Respondent : Mr.PM.Vishnuvarthan
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1534 of 2010
JUDGMENT
Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul in MCOP
No.1868 of 2005, the claimant has come up with this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2.The facts in brief is that on 29.11.2004 at 10.45 a.m, the claimant
was proceeding in his bicycle on Anna Road in Trichy. At that time, a
bus bearing registration No.TN-45-N-1232, which was driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against him. In the accident, he
sustained multiple injuries all over his body and he was immediately
taken to ABC Hospital, Trichy. Further case of the claimant is that he
was 29 years old at the relevant point of time and he was working as a
Tailor and thereby earning Rs.5,000/- per month and hence, he is entitled
for Rs.8,00,000/-.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1534 of 2010
3.The respondent Transport Corporation resisted the claim
disputing the age, income and avocation of the claimant. According to
the Transport Corporation, the driver was driving the bus slowly and
carefully, but the claimant, who was riding his bicycle, suddenly
attempted to cross the road and invited the accident. Hence, the Transport
Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also stated that
the claim was exorbitant and excessive.
4.Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined 3 witnesses and
marked 9 documents and on the side of the respondent, one Dinakaran
was examined as R.W.1, but no documentary evidence was produced.
After analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal came to
the conclusion that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident
and awarded Rs.2,02,150/- with 7.5% interest. Seeking enhancement of
compensation, the claimant has come with this appeal as stated supra.
5.Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would argue that the claimant has suffered multiple injuries and his total
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1534 of 2010
disability was assessed at 86%. It is also contended that in view of the
injuries sustained by the claimant, he is not able to do his regular work of
Tailoring and hence, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier to
assess the loss of income. Instead, the Tribunal has applied Rs.1,500/-
per percentage. The learned counsel would further submit that in view of
the injuries sustained by the claimant, he is affected by fits and he is
taking treatment for the same.
6.Per contra, Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan, learned counsel for the
respondent/Transport Corporation argued and justified the conclusion
reached by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
8.In the matter on hand, finding of the Tribunal that the accident
had occurred due to the negligence of the driver has become final as no
appeal has been preferred by the respondent challenging the said finding.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1534 of 2010
Insofar as the quantum is concerned, the claimant in his evidence has
categorically stated that he was a Tailor by profession and in view of the
injuries sustained in the accident, he is not able to do his regular work.
P.W.2 Dr.V.R.Ravi and P.W.3 Dr.Muralidaran have given evidence stating
that the claimant sustained fracture on the left shoulder and in the head
and underwent surgery for the injuries sustained in the spleen. Ex.P.2-
Wound Certificate reveals the injuries sustained by the claimant. P.W.2
Dr.Ravi (Ortho) issued disability certificate (Ex.P.4) stating that the
claimant sustained 58% permanent disability. P.W.3 Dr.Muralidaran
(Neurologist) assessed disability at 28% and issued disability certificate
(Ex.P.8). The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.P.4 and P.8 would show
that the claimant suffered total disability of 86% and lost his earning
capacity. So, I am of the view that this is the fit case for applying
multiplier.
9.Though the claimant has stated that he was earning Rs.5,000/-
per month, but no documentary evidence was produced in support of his
claim. So, it would be appropriate to fix notional income at Rs.2,000/-
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1534 of 2010
per month and by applying multiplier '17', the claimant would be entitled
Rs.4,08,000/-(2000 x 12 x 17) instead of Rs.97,500/- which has been
awarded under the head of permanent disability. Further, the Tribunal
has awarded Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.81,650/- for medical
expenses based on the Exs.P.3 to P.8; Rs.5,000/- for nutrition; Rs.5,000/-
for transportation; Rs.3,000/- for attendant charges. In total, the Tribunal
has awarded Rs.2,02,150/-. While enhancing the award amount in
respect of loss of earning, the amount awarded under other heads are
confirmed. Hence, the award amount is enhanced to Rs.5,12,650/- from
Rs.2,02,150/-. For the enhanced amount, the appellant/claimant is
entitled for interest at 6% per annum only from the date of admission of
the appeal till the date of realization.
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The
respondent/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the above award
amount with accrued interest and costs, less the amount already
deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1534 of 2010
withdraw the award amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any,
together with proportionate interest and costs. No costs.
09.03.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.1534 of 2010
K.KALYANASUNDARAM.,J
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.1534 of 2010
09.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
