Madras High Court
K.Vijayakumar vs Dr.K.Senthilnathan on 18 November, 2021
1
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 18.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 660 of 2018
K.Vijayakumar .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
1.Dr.K.Senthilnathan
2.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Vijaya Palza Buildings, 2nd Floor,
C-32 2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar,
Chennai 600 040
Now at No.46 Moore Street, 2nd line Beach
Regina mansion, Chennai - 1 .. Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and
decree dated 19.01.2012 made in MACT O.P.No.1865/2008 on the file of
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chennai, V Judge, Small Causes
Court, Chennai.
For Appellant .. Mr.A.N.Viswanatha Rao
For Respondents .. Mr.J.Chandran for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment
and decree dated 19.01.2012 made in MACT O.P.No.1865/2008 on the
file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, V Judge, Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2. The claimant is the appellant herein.
3. The case of the claimant before the trial Court is as follows:
In an accident that had occurred on 19.04.2007, at about 14.00 hrs.,
when the claimant was driving a mini van bearing Registration No. TSL
7984 at Koovur, near bridge, an ambulance owned by the 1st respondent
insured with the 2nd respondent Corporation was driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner hit the claimant's van, due to which, the
claimant sustained multiple injuries. Since the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ambulance, the
claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent denied the manner in
which the accident occurred and denied the allegations made in the claim
petition. Since the offending vehicle was plied without valid insurance
coverage, permit, fitness certificate and the driver did not possess a valid
driving license, it is the case of the 2 nd respondent that the respondent is
not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and
P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the
2nd respondent, R.W.-1 was examined and Ex.R-1 was marked.
6.The Tribunal, on considering the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence held that, the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the ambulance and awarded a sum
of Rs.4,45,000/- as compensation to the Claimant. Not being satisfied
with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come
up with the present Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
documents available on record.
8.It is the case of Appellant/Claimant that, the Tribunal erred in
fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, when he was
actually earning more than that per month and that, the Tribunal ought to
have awarded towards pain and suffering, as the claimant sustained
fracture of both bone, right leg with fracture of shaft of right femur and
multiple injuries all over the body. The Tribunal has not taken into
consideration the compensation for loss of income during treatment
period, extra nourishment, attender charges, loss of amenities, future
treatment etc. Hence, it is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the compensation to be enhanced under the above heads.
9. It is seen that, it is a case of injury arising out of an accident
that had occurred on 19.04.2007, in which the appellant/claimant
sustained injuries, which is supported by Ex.P6 - FIR. It is the finding of
the Tribunal that since the application is filed under Section 163A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant need not prove the negligence. It is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in dispute that the first respondent is the owner of the offending
vehicle/ambulance, which was insured with the 2nd respondent.
Considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the Tribunal has fixed
a sum of Rs.3,000/- as his notional income, as no documents have been
produced to substantiate the earning of the claimant. The Tribunal has
taken into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimant and the
surgeries undergone by him and fixed functional disability at 60% and
since the claimant is the Driver by profession, granted a sum of Rs.36000
x 18 x 60 = Rs.3,88,000/-. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the
treatment undergone by the claimant and granted a sum of Rs.50,000/-
towards pain and sufferings and towards medical bills, the Tribunal
granted a sum of Rs.6,106/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted a sum of
Rs.4,45,000/- as compensation to the claimant.
10. The Tribunal, considering the fact that the appellant suffered
injuries and had suffered shortening of right leg by 3 cm, assessed rightly
the functional disability of the appellant at 60% and by calculating the
notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month, awarded a total compensation
of Rs.4,45,000/-, which includes pain and suffering, together with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the Claim Petition till
the date of deposit.
11. In the considered view of this Court, since there is no
documents whatsoever filed to substantiate the monthly income of the
claimant, the income has been fixed notionally and the functional
disability fixed at 60%, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal
does not require any interference at the hands of this Court, as the
compensation is just and proper compensation. The 2nd respondent is
directed to deposit the Award amount along with 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 judgment to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.1865 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal at Chennai, V Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. On such
deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the Award
amount directly to the Bank account of the Appellant/Claimant through
RTGS, within a period of two weeks.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
18.11.2021
RR
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chennai, V Judge, Small
Causes Court, Chennai.
2.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Vijaya Palza Buildings, 2nd Floor,
C-32 2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar,
Chennai 600 040, Now at No.46 Moore Street, 2nd line Beach
Regina mansion, Chennai - 1
3. V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
RR
C.M.A.No.660 / 2018
18.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
