Madras High Court
Rajendran vs G.Ramalingam on 9 February, 2022
C.M.A.No369 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.02.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.A.No.369 of 2006
Rajendran ... Appellant
Vs.
1. G.Ramalingam
2. The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Easwaran Koil Street, Pondicherry – 1. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 [1] of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2005
MACT.O.P.No.208 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
[Sub Judge], Panruti.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman
For respondents : Mr.M.J.Vijaraghavan – R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
C.M.A.No369 of 2006
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated
30.08.2005 passed in MACT.O.P.No.208 of 1999 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal [Sub Judge], Panruti.
2. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 25.11.1997 at
about 5.30 p.m. when the claimant was going in a bicycle in
Thirvananthapuram Panruti main road, near A.Kuchipalayam, the bus
belonging to the first respondent bearing registration No.TAH 4545 was driven
by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the claimant from back
side. Due to which the claimant sustained injuries and was admitted in
Cudallore Government Hospital, where he took treatment as an in-patient for
one week. The claimant was doing centring work and was earning not below a
sum of Rs.80/- per day and he is the only bread winner of his family and as he
suffered from partial disability due to the accident, he had lost his income.
Hence, the claimant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. According to him,
the first respondent has insured his vehicle with the second respondent and
therefore, contended that both the respondents were liable to pay the
compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No369 of 2006
3. The second respondent filed the counter stating that claim petition is
not maintainable in law and on facts. The respondent denied the fact that the
vehicle involved in the accident is insured with this respondent. He also denied
the registration certificate, fitness certificate and permit and the driver's license.
This respondent also denied the status, age and monthly income of the claimant
and the fact that he had suffered loss of income. All the above facts have to be
proved by the claimant. Contending that the claim of compensation, the pain
and suffering and permanent disability were all imaginary and highly
exaggerated, prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs.
5. The Court below after considering the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence of both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as
compensation. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filed this appeal
before this Court.
6. The claimant aggrieved over the quantum of the award awarded as
compensation had filed this appeal stating that the tribunal gravely erred in
brushing aside the evidence of the Doctor P.W.2 and disability certificate
Ex.P.7 issued by P.W.2. P.W.2 had assessed the permanent disability of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No369 of 2006
claimant only after clinical examination of the appellant but also after noticing
that there was post traumatic osteo arthritio changes on the right shoulder joint
and there was stiffness of the right shoulder joint as could be seen from the
disability certificate Ex.P.7 and assessed permanent disability at 25%. The
tribunal in the light of evidence of P.W.1, that after the shoulder injury he is
unable to do his work as a collie and as a result he is not able to earn and
support his family ought to have held that the earning capacity of the appellant
has been affected and out to have awarded atleast a sum of Rs.50,000/- as
compensation, having regard to the nature of injuries and the nature of work
carried on by the appellant prior to the accident. Hence, prays to enhance the
compensation.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the tribunal
after considering both the oral and documentary evidence of both sides has
awarded just compensation and hence, the well considered award of the Court
below needs no interference.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No369 of 2006
9. In an earlier occasion, the appeal filed by the appellant has been
dismissed for default on 13.07.2010. Thereafter, a petition to restore the appeal
has been filed along with a petition to condone the delay of 902 days in the
year 2013 and the same has been allowed on 19.02.2021. Thereafter, the
petition file to restore the appeal has been numbered and the same has been
listed before this Court today and the same has been allowed today.
10. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the
injury sustained by the claimant is only a minor injury and the certificate issued
by the doctor also confirm the same and considering the circumstances of the
case, the Court has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the accident
which had taken place in the year 1997. Therefore, I am not inclined to
interfere with the well reasoned award of the tribunal.
11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
09.02.2022
vrc
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No369 of 2006
To
1. The Sub Court,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Panruti.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No369 of 2006
J.NISHA BANU, J.
vrc
C.M.A.No.369 of 2006
09.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
