Madras High Court
P.Sambasivam vs A.Anandan on 11 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.562 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.03.2021
CORAM
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C.M.A.No.562 of 2021
P.Sambasivam
S/o. Paramasivam ..Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1. A.Anandan
S/o. Kalaiselvan
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
No.1, Bharathi Road, Arcot Woodlands Building,
Cuddalore.
3. S.Ambiga
W/o. Sammarvelu
4. The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
No.127, II Floor, Natesan Towers,
Natesan Nagar, Ellaipillaichavady,
Pondicherry – 605 005. ...Respondents/Respondents
Page 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.562 of 2021
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
11.12.2018 in M.C.O.P.No.1769 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.
For Appellant ::Ms.Ramya V.Rao
For Respondents ::Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy for R2
Mr.G.Vasudevan for R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment
and Decree dated 11.12.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.1769 of 2014 on the file
of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.
2. The case in brief is as follows:
On 15.10.2013 at about 12.30 pm, while the petitioner was riding his
motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN-72-K-8539 from north to south at
his extreme left of the Panruti to Kumbakonam Main Road,
Abatharanapuram, at that time, the driver of the first respondent's Car
bearing Reg. No.PY-01-AY-1068 drove the same in a rash and negligent
Page 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.562 of 2021
manner, dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which, he sustained
grievous injuries and multiple fractures all over the body. Immediately, he
was taken to Government Hospital, Kurinchipadi and then transferred to
Government Hospital, Cuddalore for further treatment and then shifted to
PIMS Hospital, Puducherry for advanced treatment.
3. Ms.Ramya V. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant
submitted her arguments. As per her submissions, the appellant herein was
a claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. He was
grievously injured in the accident that took place on 15.10.2013. He was
hospitalized for certain period. After discharge, he had been partially
permanently disabled. Therefore, he preferred the claim petition seeking the
compensation for partial permanent disability. Prior to his injury in
accident, he was an agriculturalist and also he is doing business and roughly
he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. To prove the partial
permanent disability, the Doctor was examined as P.W.2, had assessed the
disability as 45%. The Tribunal had assessed the disability as 40% and
fixed the notional income as Rs.4500/-. Therefore, the compensation
Page 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.562 of 2021
awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side. Aggrieved by the award,
the claimant had preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of award as just
compensation.
4. Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company/R4 has vehemently objected stating that the Tribunal had
observed that it is not permanent disability and it is physical impairment
likely to improve at an young age of the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal
had fairly fixed a sum of Rs.3000/- for each percentage disability and
thereby Rs.1,35,000/- towards his permanent disability (Physical
Impairment). Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards
pain and sufferings and Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges, travel
expenses and extra nourishment and Rs.2,03,069/- towards medical
expenses and the total award amount is Rs.4,13,000/-.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant had produced the
photograph of the claimant showing his injured legs. This photograph was
not marked in the trial Court/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Therefore,
Page 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.562 of 2021
the same cannot be placed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court
may be carried away by the photograph. Therefore, it is not fair on the part
of the appellant to produce the same, since the learned counsel for the R2
and R4 objected to the same. He too submitted that the award passed by the
Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Cuddalore was just and fair. The
appearance of the leg of the claimant indicate injuries and it is likely to
improve over a period of time and so it is not a partial permanent disability,
he can still involve himself in agriculture. Therefore, the quantum of the
multiplier in this case is not necessary. What had been calculated by the
Tribunal is just and fair. The appeal lacks merit and it has to be dismissed.
6. The learend counsel for the appellant had also sent synopsis along
with calculation stated that Rs.12,000/- per month as the notional income
and 45% as the disability.
7. Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhancement of the
award amount.
Page 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.562 of 2021
8. Perused the petition and counter in MCOP.No.1769 2014 and the
impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal
District Judge, Cuddalore and the grounds of appeal filed by the claimant
seeking enhancement.
9. On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal and the calculation
furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant was also
objected by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 respectively.
Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the quantum offered by the learned
counsel for the appellant/claimant and instead, we fix the notional income
as Rs.10,000/- per month. As per the reported Rulings of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Crl.) 666 (Gnanam @
Gnanamurthy Vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation) wherein it had
been stated that opinion regarding disability differs individually from
Doctor to Doctor and regarding the percentage of disability. The Tribunal
can vary the disability arrived at by the Doctor upto 10%. Here in this case,
we are accepting 40% of disability. Therefore, for Partial Permanent
Disability the quantum is arrived at as follows:
Page 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.562 of 2021
Monthly income : Rs.10000/-
Annual income : Rs.10000x12 = 1,20,000
Taking the multiplier as 14 for the age group 41 to 45 years
Loss of income :: Rs.1,20,000 x14x40%
:: Rs.6,72,000/-
10. No amount was awarded by the Tribunal under the head “loss of
amenities”. Therefore, this Court awards a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards
“loss of amenities”.
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 awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal Court
1 Permanent Disability 1,35,000 6,72,000
2 Pain and Sufferings 50,000 50,000
3 Attendant Charges 25,000 25,000
Transportation
Extra Nourishment
Page 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.562 of 2021
Sl. Head under which the Amounts Amounts
No compensation is awarded awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal Court
4 Loss of amenities - 40,000
5 Medical Expenses 2,03,069 2,03,069
Total 4,13,069 9,90,069
Rounded off – 4,13,000
12. The Point for consideration is answered in favour of the
appellant/Claimant and against the respondent/Insurance Company.
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed.
The second respondent is directed to deposit 75% of the award amount and
fourth respondent to deposit 25% of the award amount, which we have
determined in this appeal, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1769 of 2014, on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge,
Cuddalore, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 submitted that
the appeal was filed with the condone delay petition for the period of delay
in filing. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is not entitled to claim interest.
Therefore, Rs. 9,90,069/- to be deposited by the respondents 2 and 4 along
Page 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.562 of 2021
with interest 7.5% from the date of numbering the appeal till date of deposit
along with costs if any as awarded by the Tribunal, 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 of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant
shall be entitled to withdraw the award amount with accrued interest. The
appellant is directed to pay appropriate Court fees within a period of two
months, failing which, he is not entitled to claim interest on the award
amount. No costs.
(R.P.S.J.) (S.S.K.J.)
dh 11.03.2021
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking order
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Judge,
Cuddalore.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
Page 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.562 of 2021
R.SUBBIAH, J.
AND
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
dh
C.M.A.No.562 of 2021
11.03.2021
Page 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
