Madras High Court
N.Sathiya vs M.Umapathy on 18 November, 2021
CMA.No.49 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CMA.No.49 of 2020
N.Sathiya ..Appellant
Vs.
1.M.Umapathy
2.S.Govindhan
3.Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.66, Thirmalai Pillai Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in
MCOP.No.1579 of 2014, dated 05.09.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, II-Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.A.A.Venkatesan
For Respondents : Mr.Dhakshinamoorthy for R3
R1 & R2 – No Appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.49 of 2020
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal made in MCOP.No.1579 of 2014 in and by which, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,27,341/- and rounded it of to Rs.1,27,400/-
as compensation for the injury suffered by the Claimant / Appellant in a
motor accident that occurred on 05.01.2014.
2.It is the case of the claimant that he is an Auto driver and while
he was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-20-AE-2261 along
the Poondi Sendranpalayam road junction in Thiruvallur District, a Van
bearing registration No.TN-55-D-2874 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner came on the wrong side and dashed against him. Due to
the accident, the claimant suffered grevious injuries. It is claimed that the
accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the Van and that claimant had suffered grevious injuries, which has resulted
in permanent disability. The claimant sought for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- as
compensation under various heads.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.49 of 2020
3.The claim was resisted by the 3rd respondent / Insurance
Company contending that the driver of the Van was not responsible for the
accident. It was also claimed that the claimant himself has contributed to
the accident. The quantum of compensation was claimed as excessive. The
Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Van driver and concluded that the Insurance Company is liable
for payment of compensation. The Insurance Company has not challenged
the award and hence, the question of negligence does not arise for
consideration.
4.The claimant has come up with this appeal contending that the
quantum of compensation awarded is very meagre and the Tribunal ought to
have adopted the multiplier method for assessing the compensation on
account of disability and it should not have adopted the percentage method.
As regards the claim of injury, the disability assessed by the medical board
at 10% and major injury suffered by the claimant is a fracture of the femur
bone for which he was operated upon and the implants that were made were
also removed even during the pendency of the original petition. The medical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.49 of 2020
board has assessed the disability at 10% and it is stated that the 10%
disability is due to stiffness of the hip caused by the fracture in the femur
bone.
5.Mr.A.A.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant
would vehemently contend that the Tribunal was not justified in adopting the
percentage method and it should have adopted the multiplier method as
suggested in 2018 (2) TN MAC 475. The Tribunal has held that since the
percentage of disability is only 10% and that too it is due to the stiffness in
the hip, it may not affect the avocation of the claimant and his earning
capacity. Multiplier method of determination of compensation for injury is
to be applied only when it is shown that the disability that had arisen out of
the accident has an effect on the earning capacity of the victim. In the
absence of such proof, I do not think that the multiplier method could be
adopted therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the
appellant that multiplier method should have been adopted for fixing the
compensation.
6.Lastly, Mr.A.A.Venkatesan would contend that in
M.Chinnathambi Vs. Deepa and another reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.49 of 2020
617, while deciding the compensation for disability on the percentage basis,
this Court has awarded Rs.4,000/- per percentage of disability. In this case
also, award per percentage of disability can be fixed at Rs.4,000/- instead of
Rs.3,000/- as fixed by the Tribunal.
7.In result, this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal on the question of disability is enhanced to
Rs.40,000/- at a rate of Rs.4,000/- per percentage for the disability from
Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income.
Considering the fact that the Appellant is a driver, the loss of income fixed at
Rs.15,000/- seems to be on the lower side and I am of the opinion that
Rs.25,000/- as loss of income would be fair and just. Therefore, the total
amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to 1,47,400/- and is rounded
off to Rs.1,50,000/-. In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is
confirmed. No costs.
18.11.2021
kkn
Index:No
Internet:Yes
Speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.49 of 2020
To:-
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
II-Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.66, Thirmalai Pillai Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.49 of 2020
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
CMA.49 of 2020
18.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.49 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
