Madras High Court
N.Krishnan vs J.Srinivasan on 8 February, 2022
CMA.No.516 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CMA.No.516 of 2017
N.Krishnan
...Petitioner / Appellant
Vs.
1.J.Srinivasan
2.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
“Heavitree” Union No.1, 3rd Floor,
No.23, Spur Tank Road,
Chetpet, Chennai – 31. ..Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, to set aside the award and decree dated 21.02.2014 passed in
MCOP.No.4552 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / VI Small
Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.Amar D.Pandiay
For Mr.J.Ramkumar
For R1 : Mr.M.Devaraj
For R2 : Mr.Elveera Ravindran
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.516 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed questioning the
compensation granted by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI
Small Causes Court, Chennai in MCOP.No.4552 of 2006 by judgment and
decree dated 21.02.2014.
2. The appellant who was the petitioner before the Triubnal is
deeply concerned and aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by
the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner, a mason has suffered
injuires in both bones in the leg and thereby could not continue to work as
mason and sought compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- for the injuries suffered. I
am really concerned in this appeal only with the loss of income aspect. He
claimed a sum of Rs.52,000/- as total loss of earning from 02.06.2006 to
31.12.2006 and another sum of Rs.25,000/- for partial loss of earing from
01.01.2007 to 31.07.2007. I am also concerned with the claim what has been
granted by the learned Tribunal on the ground of transportation, extra
nourishment and damages to clothing and articles for which a sum of
Rs.10,000/- was granted. The learned Tribunal had determined the disability
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.516 of 2017
at the rate of 40% and had fixed at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per percentage and
had granted a total amount of Rs.80,000/- under that head. With respect to
loss of income, the learned Tribunal had determined the income per month
which should have been suffered as loss by the appellant at Rs.4,500/- and
calculating the same for six months had granted a sum of Rs.27,000/-.
Regarding transportation and extra nourishment and damages to clothes a
sum of Rs.10,000/- had been granted. The learned Tribunal had also taken
into consideration, the medical expense at Rs.3,000/-, compensation for pain
and suffering at Rs.25,000/- and loss of amenities at Rs.25,000/- and had
determined the total compensation payable to the petitioner at Rs.1,70,000/-.
4. The scope of the appeal is quite narrow. The facts cannot be re-
examined namely, the fact that the appellant herein had actually suffered
injuries. The fact that he had suffered injuries in his leg and that he was a
mason and that therefore, as a mason with such injuries, he could not perform
normal work and naturally, there was a loss of income during the period he
had suffered owing to the injuries. The disability at the rate of 40% cannot be
disputed at this stage and the fixation of Rs.2,000/- per percentage was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.516 of 2017
actually a reasonable amount, and as was what prevelent in the year 2006.
5. I should deeply appreciate the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent who had been quite fair in his submission and stated that
determination of monthly income at Rs.4,500/- would seem to be little on the
lower side. The learned counsel for the appellant insisted that it should be
fixed at Rs.7,500/-. But I would rather to meet the ends of justice determine
that Rs.6,000/- can be fixed as the monthly income that the appellant would
suffer and if that is calculated for six months, the total loss under that head
which comes to Rs.36,000/-. Naturally, there is interference with that
particular portion of the order under appeal by determining the loss of
income which was determined at Rs.27,000/- now being increased to
Rs.36,000/-. There are further heads namely, under expenses due to
transportation, extra nourishment and damages of clothes. On these three
separate heads, the learned Tribunal had fixed a total sum of Rs.10,000/-
without granting break up for each head. However, ends of justice would
require that the said compensation has to be revisited and an additional
Rs.10,000/- is granted to the appellant herein. This would imply that the
appellant would be entitled to an increase of Rs.19,000/- and therefore, now
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.516 of 2017
the total amount comes to Rs.1,89,000/-.
6. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to that extent
enhancing the compensation which had been determined as Rs.1,70,000/- to
Rs.1,89,000/-. The other aspects are in the order shall remain the same. The
Insurance company shall deposit the difference in compensation amount with
interest of 7.5% from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of deposit
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. No order
as to costs.
7.The Registry while preparing the decree may also examine
whether any court fee is payable by the petitioner and, if it is so may call
upon the appellant to adjust the same.
08.02.2022
smv
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.516 of 2017
To:-
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.516 of 2017
smv
CMA.No.516 of 2017
08.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
