Madras High Court
Govindan vs R.Seethalakshimi on 19 November, 2021
C.M.A.No.510 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.510 of 2014
Govindan .. Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Seethalakshimi
(R1 remained exparte before Tribunal)
2.New India Insurance Company Limited,
Third Party Cell,
Regional Office,
No.45, Moore Street,
Parrys,
Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
10.10.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.2299 of 2011 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja
for Ms.M.Malar
For R1 : Exparte
For R2 : Mr.G.Udhayasankar
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.510 of 2014
JUDGMENT
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of
compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 10.10.2012 made in
M.C.O.P.No.2299 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2299 of 2011 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai. He
filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place
on 27.05.2011.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the Maruthi Omni Car belonging to 1st respondent and directed
the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as
compensation to the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.510 of 2014
4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the
accident, the appellant sustained abrasion in fore head, swelling in the brain
and multiple grievous injuries all over the body. P.W.3/Doctor, who examined
the appellant deposed that the appellant is having head ache, giddiness,
shivering in the left hand and leg, loss of memory, he is not able to lift weight
at head and certified that the appellant has suffered 30% disability. But, the
Tribunal has awarded only a meagre sum of Rs.60,000/- towards disability.
The Tribunal ought to have fixed the loss of earning capacity of the appellant
at 100% and awarded compensation. At the time of accident, the appellant
was aged 49 years, doing Centering work and was earning a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed a meagre sum of Rs.4,500/- per
month as notional income of the appellant and awarded compensation
towards loss of income only for three months. The amounts awarded by the
Tribunal towards extra nourishment, pain and sufferings and damages to
clothes are meagre. The Tribunal has not awarded any amounts towards
attendant charges, future medical expenses and loss of amenities and prayed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.510 of 2014
for enhancement of compensation.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent-
Insurance Company contended that P.W.3/Doctor is not the Doctor who
treated the appellant and hence, the percentage of disability assessed by him
at 30% is not correct. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- for
30% disability at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability and the
same is excessive. The appellant has not proved his avocation and income. In
the absence of any document with regard to avocation and income, a sum of
Rs.4,500/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the
appellant is excessive. The Tribunal considering the entire materials on record,
has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the appellant for the
simple injuries sustained by him in the accident and the same is excessive.
The appellant has not made out any case for enhancement of compensation
and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and
perused the entire materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.510 of 2014
9.From the materials on record, it is seen that in the accident, the
appellant sustained abrasion in fore head, swelling in the brain and multiple
grievous injuries all over the body. To prove the same, the appellant examined
himself as P.W.1 and examined Dr.J.R.R.Thiagarajan as P.W.3.
P.W.3/Doctor examined the appellant and certified that the appellant has
suffered 30% disability. P.W.3/Doctor is not the Doctor who treated the
appellant. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries sustained by the
appellant, held that the assessment of disability by P.W.3/Doctor appears to
be reasonable and awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- for disability at the rate of
Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. The accident is of the year 2011 and a
sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability awarded by the Tribunal is
meagre. Considering the year of accident, the appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. Thus, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal towards disability is modified to Rs.90,000/- (Rs.3,000/- X 30%
disability).
10.It is the contention of the appellant that at the time of accident, he
was aged 49 years, doing Centering work and was earning a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month. The appellant has not produced any material evidence
to prove his avocation and income. In the absence of any material evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.510 of 2014
with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal fixed the notional income
of the appellant at Rs.4,500/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs.13,500/- as
compensation towards loss of income for three months. The accident occurred
in the year 2011. The cost of living has increased enormously and salary of
even unskilled workers has increased substantially. Hence, a sum of
Rs.8,000/- per month is fixed as notional income of the appellant. Thus, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is modified to
Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000/- X 3 months). The appellant has taken first aid
treatment in the Chrompet Government Hospital and thereafter, has taken
treatment as inpatient for two days on 27.05.2011 and 28.05.2011 at Chennai
General Hospital. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards
attendant charges and loss of amenities. Considering the period of treatment
taken by the appellant, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards attendant
charges. Considering the nature of injuries and disability suffered by the
appellant, this Court is of the view that he would have suffered inconvenience
and would be facing discomfort in his life. Therefore, the appellant is entitled
to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. The appellant has not
produced any medical records to show that he requires further medical
treatment. Hence, he is not entitled to any amount towards future medical
expenses. Considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment taken by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.510 of 2014
the appellant, this Court is of the view that the amounts awarded by the
Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are
hereby confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
modified as follows:
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
No by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Disability 60,000/- 90,000/- Enhanced
2. Pain and sufferings 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
3. Extra nourishment 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
4. Medical expenses 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
5. Loss of Income 13,500/- 24,000/- Enhanced
6. Transportation 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
7. Damages to clothes 1,500/- 1,500/- Confirmed
8. Attendant charges - 5,000/- Granted
9. Loss of Amenities - 10,000/- Granted
Total Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,55,500/- Enhanced by
Rs.55,500/-
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,00,000/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.1,55,500/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2 nd respondent-
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount now determined
by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.510 of 2014
if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2299 of 2011 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai. On such deposit,
the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by
this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already
withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs.
19.11.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The learned II Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.510 of 2014
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.510 of 2014
19.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
