Madras High Court
Mannakatti vs P.Shivaji on 8 April, 2022
CMA.No.1207 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CMA.No.1207 of 2018
Mannakatti ...Appellant
v.
1.P.Shivaji
2.United India Insurance Company Limited,
'Silingi Building'
No.134, Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, to enhance the award dated 22.09.2017 made in MACTOP
No.410 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special
Sub Judge No.II to deal with MCOP cases holding Full Additional Charge
of V Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Ms.A.Subadra
R1 : Ex-parte
For R2 : Ms.R.Rathna Thara
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1207 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The claimant in MCOP No.410 of 2011 which was on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Judge No.II to deal with
MCOP cases holding Full Additional Charge of V Court of Small Causes,
Chennai is the appellant herein.
2.The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
granted for injuries suffered on 28.08.2007 at around 12.00 p.m in the
afternoon when he was walking in Thirunavallur Road near Indian Bank
when a private bus bearing Regn. No.TN-31-11-3308 had dashed against
him.
3.The injuries he had suffered were as follows:
“Head injuries, right side eyebrow cut injury, fracture of right
shoulder, fracture of zygoma, dislocation right hip and multiple injury all
over the bodies.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1207 of 2018
4.The claimant was aged about 60 years at that particular point of
time and he claimed that he was a centring worker and was earning a sum of
Rs.500/- per day.
5.The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence presented before it by
order dated 22.09.2017, had granted a total compensation of Rs.2,50,500/-.
Aggrieved by such compensation granted, he had preferred the present
Appeal.
6.Heard both sides.
7.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the appellant was doing centring work, which required skill and owing to
injuries suffered, that work could not be performed by him. He was aged 60
years at that particular point of time. It is also stated that during the course
of trial, PW-2 / Medical Professional had been examined and he had given
his assessment of the disability at 65%. The grievance is that the Tribunal
had reduced the disability to 50%. It is contented that the disability at 65%
should be retained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1207 of 2018
8.Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company
pointed out that the Tribunal had been more than liberal in granting
compensation under various heads like mental agony, physical discomfort
and also mental agony to the family members and stated that if the
Insurance Company had filed an appeal, then there would be substantial
grounds to interfere with the award granted by the Tribunal.
9.However in view of the fact that a sum of Rs.2,50,500/- had
been granted as compensation let me not delve into that particular argument
any further and let the matter rest at that.
10.A perusal of the order shows that the Tribunal had determined
that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent manner in
which the offending bus was driven and caused the accident. I would affirm
that particular finding.
11.With respect to the nature of injuries and also the percentage
of disability which had been adopted by the Tribunal, it is seen from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1207 of 2018
discussion that PW-2 had determined the disability as follows:-
“1.Post traumatic head ache giddiness tremors (L) hand and
leg memory deficit at 25%.
2.Mal united fracture Zygma T.joint fibrosis and chewing and
opening the mouth fully at 20%.
3.Mal united fracture (R), Scapula fibrosis muscle, Abduction
(R) Arm 80% beyond difficult. IRER. 50 limited. Difficult to
work and carry weight with right hand at 20%.”
12.The Tribunal found that PW-2 who had given the aforesaid
evidence had not treated the claimant. It was also noted that the claimant
had also not produced any evidence to show that owing to the accident, he
was not able to work continuously. It was observed by the Tribunal that
PW-2 had stated 25% disability for headache and giddiness which is not in
accordance with medical jurisprudence. In view of that particular evidence
adduced by PW-2, the Tribunal had come to a finding that it would be apt
and just to determine the disability at 50%. I would not disturb that
particular finding.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1207 of 2018
13.I am really concerned with the grant of compensation under
various heads probably to make up that difference of assessment at 50%
disability by the Tribunal. But again to repeat, since the Insurance Company
had not filed any appeal, it would not be proper on my part to interfere with
the award as granted by the Tribunal and enter into a detailed discussion
about the compensation to be granted.
14.The compensation as granted by the Tribunal is confirmed.
15.With the above observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
08.04.2022
smv
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To:-
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Judge No.II to deal
with MCOP cases holding Full Additional Charge of V Court of Small
Causes, Chennai
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1207 of 2018
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
smv
CMA.No.1207 of 2018
08.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
