Madras High Court
Hariharanaganathan (Died) vs M/S Dharani Finance Ltd on 4 April, 2022
C.M.A.No.2146 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.2146 of 2017
1.Hariharanaganathan (died)
2.Lalitha
3.Natarajuprabu
4.Vaishiyali
(A2 to A4 brought on record
as LRs of the deceased first appellant
vide order dated 28.02.2022 made in
CMP No.827 of 2021) ... Appellants
Vs.
1.M/s Dharani Finance Ltd.,
Dharani Nagar,
Vasudevanallur,
Sivagiri Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
2.New India Assurance Company Limited,
Rajapalayam.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2146 of 2017
3.A.Sakthivel
4.The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
No.92, East Coast Chamber, 1st Floor,
G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to enhance the award of compensation from Rs.29,23,360/- to
Rs.3,00,00,000/- in MCOP No.165 of 2011 dated 06.08.2015 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge, Cuddalore at
Vridhachalam.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Veerasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.K.Vinod for R2 & R4
No appearance for R1 & R3
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2146 of 2017
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.]
The appellants challenge the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam in MCOP
No.165 of 2011, dated 06.08.2015.
2.Facts in nutshell:-
The claimants have come up with this appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation. This is the case of injury. On 04.01.2007, the claimant
Hariharanaganathan travelled in an Omni Van bearing Reg.No.TN-51-N-9599
belonging to the third respondent and insured with the fourth respondent. When
the said vehicle was nearing Vasudevanallur, Dharani Sugars at 10.30 p.m, to give
a way to a vehicle which came from the opposite direction, slowed their vehicle,
at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-45-D-1990 belonging to
the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, suddenly stopped his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2146 of 2017
vehicle without observing road rules and hence, the third respondent's vehicle hit
the lorry. In the impact, the claimant Hariharanaganathan sustained multiple
injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, after providing
first aid, he was referred to Madurai Meenaktchi Medical Mission Hospital,
where he underwent number of surgeries. Thereafter, he took treatment at
Appollo Mid Hospital, Chennai and Prasanth Hospital, Chennai. Alleging that
the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the both the
vehicles, the injured claimant filed the claim petition seeking Rs.3,00,00,000/- as
compensation.
3.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the parties, held that the driver of the third respondent's vehicle/Omni
Van was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of
Rs.29,23,360/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum, under the following
heads:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2146 of 2017
Heads Rs.
Loss of income for 6 months (11000x6) 66,000/-
Loss of Future earning (14850x12x14x70%) 17,46,360/-
For Transportation 50,000/-
Extra Nourishment 25,000/-
Attender Charges 25,000/-
Medical Expenses 6,11,000/-
Pain and Suffering 1,50,000/-
Loss of amenities 1,50,000/-
Disability 1,00,000/-
Total 29,23,360/-
4.Being dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant filed the present appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation. During the pendency of the appeal, the
injured claimant died, hence, his legal heirs were brought on record.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants Mr.D.Veerasekaran
submitted that the Tribunal having found that the appellant was taking
physiotherapy treatment at Malar Physiotherapy Centre and incurred expenditure
of Rs.23,64,000/- and also treatment for injuries that posterior dislocation of left
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2146 of 2017
hip, fracture distal end of radius right, grossly erred in restricting the amount of
compensation to Rs.29,23,360/-. He further added that since the amount awarded
by the Tribunal is meager in all the heads, the claimants are entitled for higher
compensation.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 4
Insurance Company Mr.K.Vinod submitted that the impugned Award and Decree
awarding the aforesaid compensation is well reasoned and the appellants have not
made out any ground to enhance the compensation, therefore, this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7.This Court carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.
8. There is no dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in an road accident
that had taken place on 04.01.2007. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2146 of 2017
had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the third respondent Omni Van
has become final and hence, it need not be adverted to in the appeal.
9.Insofar as quantum is concerned, on perusal of the records, we find that
the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.X.15-Income
Tax Returns fixed the monthly income of the injured claimant and after
considering the evidence of P.W.2-Dr.R.Rathinasabapathy, P.W.3-S.Ramasamy,
Medical Records Assistant, P.W.4-B.Karthikeyan, Physiotherapist, has fixed the
disability and adopting multiplier method, awarded a just and reasonable
compensation. Further, the quantum of compensation under remaining heads
were fixed by the Tribunal by following the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in 2009 TN MAC 1. In the considered view
of this Court, the award is just and reasonable. We find no reason to interfere
with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. This appeal has no merit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2146 of 2017
10.For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the
same is dismissed. No costs.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
04.04.2022
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Additional District Judge,
Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2146 of 2017
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.No.2146 of 2017
04.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
