Madras High Court
L. Meena vs N. Murugan on 10 March, 2021
CMA No.34 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 10.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA.No.34 of 2012
L. Meena ... Appellant / Claimant
Vs.
1. N. Murugan
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.38, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. ...Respondents/Respondents
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and
judgment dated 21.02.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.4949 of 2006 by the
II Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes,
Chennai-104.
For Appellant : Mr. R. Kalai Arasan
For respondent : Mr. C. Paranthaman (for R2)
Notice unsurved to R1
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.34 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this court for enhancement of
compensation.
2. The appellant/claimant has filed a claim petition before
the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries
sustained by her in a road accident that took place on 25.08.2006.
3. The brief case of the claimant is as follows: On
25.08.2006, the claimant was travelled as a pillion rider in a motorcycle
bearing registration No.TN-22-L-9710 riding by one Manokaran along
Irumbuliyur-Saidapet Road, and while they nearing the place opposite
to Hotel Enkala at Tambaram, a speedy motorcycle bearing registration
No.22-L-5139 dashed against them, thereby the claimant and also the
rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries. According to the
claimant, the rash and negligent riding of the first respondent was the
cause of accident and since the first respondent/ owner of the vehicle
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.34 of 2012
insured his motorcycle 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 the rider A.Manoharan and Dr. K.J.Mahiazhagan were examined as
PW1 to PW3 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 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.97,500/- under various heads, as extracted
hereunder.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.34 of 2012
Sl Heads Amount in
No Rs.
1 Permanent disability 30,000
2 Loss of earnings 13,500
3 Transportation charges 1,000
3 Extra Nourishment 2,000
4 Damages to cloths and 1,000
articles
5 Medical expenses 35,000
6 Pain and sufferings 15,000
Total 97,500
Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed
the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the insurance company and I have perused the
materials on record.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
claimant submitted that the claimant had sustained fracture of ribs right
side and also sustained injuries and the doctor has assessed the
disability suffered by the Tribunal as 20%, however, without any basis,
the tribunal has fixed the disability at 15%, which is unsustainable. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.34 of 2012
further submitted that though the claimant has earned a sum of
Rs.18,000/- as monthly income, the Tribunal has fixed only at
Rs.4,500/- and awarded a sum of Rs.13,500/- towards " Loss of
earning" that too for only three months, instead of four months, as
claimed in the claim petition. He also submitted that no amount was
awarded towards " Loss of amenities" and hence, he prayed to enhance
the compensation.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/ insurance company submitted after analysing the evidence
and the documents on record, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the
disability suffered by the claimant at 15% and awarded a just and
reasonable compensation under various heads and therefore he
submitted that the findings of 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.34 of 2012
The claimant has produced the disability certificate Ex.P14,
wherein, the doctor has assessed the disability suffered by the claimant
as 20%. To support the above said document, the doctor was examined
as PW3 and he deposed about the disability of the claimant. However,
as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, the Tribunal has fixed the disability at 15%, without any
basis. Hence, as per the evidence of PW3 and the Ex.P9 and the also the
medical records, it is appropriate for this court to fix the disability
suffered by the claimant as 40% and a sum of Rs.2,000/- is awarded per
percentage. Further, no documents was produced to prove the income
of the claimant and hence, a sum of Rs.4,500/- is fixed as monthly
income, as rightly fixed by the Tribunal, and a sum of Rs.18,000/- is
awarded for four months towards " Loss of earnings". Besides, the
compensation awarded under the head " Pain and sufferings" is
enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is
awarded towards " Loss of amenities". As far as the compensation
awarded under the other heads are concerned, this court opines that it
does not warrant any interference by this court. Accordingly, the
revised compensation awarded under the various heads is extracted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.34 of 2012
hereunder.
Sl. Heads Compensation Compensation
No Awarded by the enhanced/ Awarded
Tribunal by this court
1 Permanent disability 30,000 40,000
2 Loss of earnings 13,500 18,000
3 Transportation charges 1,000 1,000
4 Extra Nourishment 2,000 2,000
5 Damages to cloths and 1,000 1,000
articles
6 Medical expenses 35,000 35,000
7 Pain and sufferings 15,000 20,000
7 Loss of amenities - 10,000
8 Total 97,500 1,27,000
This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
12. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.97,500- to
Rs.1,27,000/-. No costs.
(ii) The second respondent/insurance company is directed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.34 of 2012
to deposit the revised compensation of Rs.1,27,0-00/- 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.
10.03.2021
(2/2)
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/non Speaking order
mst
To
1. The II Judge, Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Court of Small
Causes, Chennai - 104.
2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.38, Anna Salai,
Chennai-2.
3. Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.34 of 2012
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mst
CMA. No.34 of 2012
10.03.2021
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
