Madras High Court
C.Thomas vs S.Purushothaman on 2 September, 2021
C.M.A.No.1083 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.1083 of 2019
C.Thomas ... Appellant
Vs
1.S.Purushothaman
2.M/s.Royal Sundaram Allaince Ins. Co. Ltd.,
No.46, Whites Road,
Chennai – 14. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.10.2009 and made
in MCOP.No.108 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II,
Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Ms.Y.Jayanthi Baskar
for Mr.J.Mahalingam
For Respondent 2 : Mr.K.Vinod for
for Mr.S.Elveera Ravindran
For Respondent 1 : No appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1083 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation under the impugned award dated 14.10.2009
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Poonamallee) in MCOP.No.108 of
2007.
2. The Appellant has challenged the impugned award on the
following grounds: (a) The Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the liability
of the second respondent Insurance company and (b) the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and is not a just
compensation.
3. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
Appellant/claimant are as follows:
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Loss of earning during the 4,000/-
treatment period
Medical expenses 10,000/-
Transport to hospital 1,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/-
Pain and suffering and mental 10,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1083 of 2019
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
agony
Loss of future amenities for his 30,000/-
disability
Total 57,000/-
4. Admittedly as seen from the evidence available on record and as
per the findings rendered by the Tribunal, it is clear that the driver of the
insured vehicle was possessing LMV driving licence, though he was not
having a badge to drive the insured vehicle which is a tourist vehicle. It is
well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the
aforementioned issue, in Mukund Dewangan's case reported in AIR 2017
SC 3665. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is
not required to possess a badge for the purpose of claiming compensation
and it is sufficient, if the driver of the insured vehicle was possessing a valid
LMV license. Since the law is well settled, the Tribunal has erroneously
exonerated the liability of the second respondent Insurance Company under
the impugned Award, despite the fact that the weight of the insured vehicle
is much below the norms fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1083 of 2019
Dewangan's case referred to supra. By total non-application of mind to the
settled law, the Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the liability of the
second respondent Insurance company. Hence, the first contention of the
Appellant/claimant has to be necessarily accepted by this Court and the
second respondent insurance Company must be held liable to pay the claim
of the Appellant/claimant.
5. Insofar as the second contention raised by the Appellant/claimant
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not a just compensation is
concerned, the followed reasons are given for enhancement of compensation
amount in favour of the Appellant/claimant:
(a) The Appellant/claimant sustained injuries which includes fracture
on his right leg. The Doctor has assessed his disability at 40%. However,
the Tribunal without any basis has reduced the disability to 30%. No
reasons have been given by the Tribunal for reduction of the disability to
30%, excepting for stating that the disability assessed by the Doctor is
disproportionate to the injury of the Appellant/claimant. That cannot be a
proper reason for reduction of the disability to 30%. Hence, this Court is of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1083 of 2019
the considered view that the disability assessed by the Doctor at 40% will
have to be accepted. Accordingly, this Court fixes the disability of the
Appellant/claimant at 40% instead of 30% erroneously assessed by the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded the disability compensation of
Rs.30,000/- calculated at Rs.1,000/- per percentage of disability for the 30%
disability assessed by the Tribunal. Since the disability is enhanced to 40%
by this Court, the disability compensation is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-
calculated at Rs.1,000/- per percentage of disability for 40% disability from
Rs.30,000/- calculated at Rs.1,000/- per percentage of disability for 30%
disability awarded by the Tribunal.
(b) The Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation towards
attender charges and loss of amenities to the Appellant/claimant which he is
legally entitled to as per the settled law. After giving due consideration to
the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant/claimant and the year of the
accident, this Court awards a compensation of Rs.5,000/- each towards
attender charges and loss of amenities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1083 of 2019
(c) Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss
of earnings during the period of treatment, medical expenses, extra
nourishment, transportation, pain and suffering and mental agony are
concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the same cannot be
considered to be inadequate as alleged by the Appellant/claimant and
therefore, the same is confirmed by this Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.77,000/- from Rs.57,000/- in the following
manner:
Heads Amount Amount
awarded by awarded by
the Tribunal this Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of earning during the 4,000/- 4,000/-
treatment period
Medical expenses 10,000/- 10,000/-
Transport to hospital 1,000/- 1,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/- 2,000/-
Pain and suffering and 10,000/- 10,000/-
mental agony
Loss of future amenities for 30,000/- 40,000/-
his disability
Loss of amenities -- 5,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1083 of 2019
Heads Amount Amount
awarded by awarded by
the Tribunal this Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Attender charges -- 5,000/-
Total 57,000/- 77,000/-
7. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed by
enhancing the award amount from Rs.57,000/- to Rs.77,000/-. The Second
respondent Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced award
amount after deducting the amount already deposited if any together with
interest from the date of claim till the date of deposit, excluding the period
of delay in filing and numbering of this appeal and cost to the credit of
MCOP.No.108 of 2007 within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the
Tribunal shall transfer the amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.108 of
2007 to the bank account of the Appellant/claimant through RTGS within a
period of one week thereafter. No costs.
02.09.2021
nl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1083 of 2019
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To
1. The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II,
Poonamallee.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
C.M.A.No.1083 of 2019
02.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
