Madras High Court
V.Perumal vs Avs Ready Mix Concrete Products ... on 5 April, 2022
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
V.Perumal ... Appellant
Vs.
1. AVS Ready Mix Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Residing at Sy.No.27/1, Balagaranahaly, Hosur Road,
Anekal, Bangalore - 560 107.
2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, 2nd Floor,
Vijay Shopping Complex,
No.2/7-16, Bangalore Main Road, Zuzuvadi,
Hosur. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against decree and judgment dated 19.02.2019 made in
M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Special Sub Judge), Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Rameshvel
For Respondents : Ms.Sree Vidhya - for R2
R1- Not ready in notice
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The claimant aggrieved by the Award fixing 25% of the liability on
the Appellant/ claimant and on the ground that quantum awarded is very
meagre, is before this Court.
2. The Appellant/ claimant had filed M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2017 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge,
Krishnagiri claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.24,30,000/-, which was
restricted to a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an
accident involving his lorry and the bus belonging to the first respondent
herein.
3. It was the Appellant's / claimant's case that he was driving the
lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-31-B-3142 on 23.02.2016 and since the
lorry had developed engine problem while going up the Hosur Flyover, he
had stopped the lorry on the Highways to repair the same. When he had got
down to repair the said problem in the engine, the lorry bearing Registration
No.KA-51-9140 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the
second respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
the Appellant's/ Claimant's lorry on its rear, thereby causing the accident. As
a result of the impact, the Appellant/ claimant had sustained grievous
injuries and fractures in his head and face and he got other injuries, which
has been detailed in the claim petition. He would submit that the accident
had occurred only on account of the negligence of the driver of the first
respondent's lorry. Therefore, he had filed the claim petition claiming
compensation.
4. The counter filed by the second respondent/ Insurance Company
with which the first respondent lorry was insured was that the Appellant/
claimant had not followed the basic road safety Regulations, when he had
stopped to repair the lorry. He had not put up the warning sign viz.,
reflectors, as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Appellant / claimant had
parked his lorry right on the middle of the road and the parking lights of the
vehicle were not switched on. The second respondent/ Insurance Company,
therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. The second respondent/
Insurance Company has not challenged the Award.
5. The Tribunal had apportioned the liability on both the vehicles.
The Appellant / claimant was apportioned a contributory negligence of 25%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
and ultimately an Award for a sum of Rs.6,56,760/- with 7.5% interest was
awarded. Challenging the same being very meagre, the Appellant/ claimant
is before this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
7. The Appellant/ claimant has argued both on the ground of liability
as well as negligence. As regards the first ground, namely liability, the
Appellant/ claimant, as P.W.1, has categorically admitted that except for the
parking lights, no other signs were put up to indicate to the other motorists
that there was a stationary vehicle on the road undergoing repairs. The
accident had taken place at 22.15 hrs. P.W.1 in his counter statement has
admitted the fact that he had not put up the warning boards around the lorry
and had only put up the parking lights. Therefore, there is a breach of the
conditions of the Policy as well as the provisions of the Motor vehicles Act.
8. The Tribunal had rightly held that the Appellant/ claimant to be
contributed to the negligence to an extent of 25%. The Tribunal had fixed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
only a notional income of Rs.8,000/-. The accident had taken place on
23.02.2016. The notional income in such cases have to be enhanced.
Accordingly, the notional income is increased to an extent of Rs.12,000/-.
However, taking into account the age of the Appellant/ claimant, no
amounts have to be granted under the head of future prospects. Further, the
disability has been assessed at 30%. In such circumstances, the loss of
income is re-worked as Rs.3,02,400/- [Rs.12,000/- x 12 x 7 x 30%]. The
amounts granted under the head of Transport, Nutrition and Attender
charges are very low and the same is enhanced by a further sum of
Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the modified compensation is as follows:
Heads Awarded Awarded by
by the this Court
Tribunal (Amount in
(Amount Rs.)
in Rs.)
Loss of Income 2,21,760 3,02,400
Medical Expenses 3,60,000 3,60,000
Transport, Nutrition and Attender 15,000 30,000
Charges
Pain and Sufferings 30,000 30,000
Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment of life 30,000 30,000
Total 6,56,760 7,52,400
9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award
of the Tribunal is modified, enhancing the compensation amount from
Rs.6,56,760/- to Rs.7,52,400/-. The second respondent-Insurance Company
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
is directed to deposit 75% of the said amount to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2017 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded
by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
Appellant / claimant shall forfeit the remaining 25% of the award amount
due to his own contributory negligence. On such deposit being made, the
claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with accrued
interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any
already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The
claimant is directed to pay the necessary Court fee for the enhanced
compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal below shall not disburse
the enhanced amount till such time the certified copy showing proof of
payment of Court fee has been produced by the claimant. In other respects,
the Award of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as
to costs in the present appeal.
05.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ab
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Judge), Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
P.T. ASHA, J,
ab
C.M.A. No.278 of 2022
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
