Madras High Court
Ajeeth vs Akhila R. Adiga on 22 April, 2022
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED : 22.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.No. 1924 of 2019
Ajeeth ...Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.Akhila R. Adiga
2.The Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited,
Branch Office,
No.52, Vinay Complex, V.V.Road,
Basavangudi,
Bangalore - 4. … Respondent/Respondent
(appellant is declared as major as per the order of this Court dated
22.04.2022 in C.M.P.No.7190 of 2022 by PTAJ)
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and Decree dated 11.04.2011 in
M.C.O.P.No.440 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.Mukund R. Pandiyan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Vinod for R2
R1 - served - No appearance
JUDGMENT
The claimant/petitioner is the appellant before this Court seeking
an enhancement of the compensation granted to him by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri, in M.C.O.P.No.440 of 2006 .
2.The facts in brief which has culminated in filing of the above
appeal are as follows:
The petitioner who was then a minor has sustained injuries in an
road accident which had taken place on 03.01.2004 at 02.00pm on
Krishnagiri to Kuppam Road. It is the case of the petitioner that when
he was walking on the left side of the Krishnagiri to Kuppam Road to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2019
come to his house and as he came near the Teacher Training School, a
Car bearing Registration No.KA-05C-2 belonging to the 1st respondent
and insured with the 2nd respondent which was driven in a rash and
negligent manner and in an uncontrollable speed, had hit the minor
petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner had fallen down and
sustained injuries. Therefore, the petitioner claimed a compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- before the Tribunal.
3.The 1st respondent, owner of the Car remained ex parte and
was set ex parte.
4.The Insurance Company had filed a counter alleging that the
negligence was on the part of the petitioner, who had suddenly cross
the road without any indication. Therefore, the driver of the 1st
respondent vehicle cannot be held responsible for the accident. They
have reserved their rights to contest the case on all grounds available to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2019
their insured by invoking the provisions of Section 170 of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
5.The Tribunal held negligence exclusively on the side of the
driver of the 1st respondent vehicle and proceeded to award a
compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
6.The Tribunal has disbelieved Ex.A.7 - Disability Certificate
that had been issued by PW2 - Doctor since he had not treated the
petitioner and he had examined the petitioner 2 1/2 years after the
accident. The Tribunal however reduced the disability assessed at 25%
to 15% and calculated the compensation on a percentage basis. The
accident had occurred in the year 2004 and a sum of Rs.2,000/- was
taken per percentage. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-
under this head. A sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded for pain and
sufferings and Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses, attendant charges
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2019
and extra nourishment. Challenging this Award is very low, the
petitioner has filed this appeal before this Court.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the papers.
8.The injuries sustained by the petitioner are only abrasions
which had been set out in Column No.11 of the Claim Statement as
follows:
"1.Minor abrasions over the left side of chestwall-
lateral aspect.
2.Minor abrasions over the knee cap region both sides.
3.Minor abrasions over the back of left iliac crest
region.
4.Minor abrasions over the left wrist region.
5.Deep abrasions over the left side eye brow and
temple region."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2019
9.Though the petitioner had himself described the injuries as
abrasions PW2-Doctor who had issued the Ex.A.7 - Disability
Certificate would state as follows:
",lJ bghl;L vYk;g[ Kwpe;Js;sJ bjhpfpwJ/
,lJ bghl;L gFjpapy; cs;s K:is gFjpapy; uj;j fl;L
kw;Wk; tPf;fKk; bjhpe;jikf;F rpfpr;ir bgw;Ws;s
tpguk;. rpfpr;ir tpLg;g[ rhd;wpjH; K:yk;
bjhpfpwJ/"
As observed by the Tribunal, the Doctor has examined the petitioner
2 1/2 years after the accident.
10.Considering the fact that the injuries were mere abrasions and
also considering the fact that the Insurance Company had not
challenged the adoption of 15% towards disability, this Court finds that
the Award passed by the Tribunal is very reasonable and there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2019
necessity to enhance the compensation as the petitioner has not
sustained any lasting disability because even according to their version,
they were only abrasions. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with
the order of the Tribunal.
In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
22.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
mps
To
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1924 of 2019
P.T. ASHA, J,
mps
C.M.A.No. 1924 of 2019
22.04.2022
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
