Madras High Court
B.Ramachandran vs V.Ignatius David on 5 January, 2022
C.M.A.No.1876 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.1876 of 2014
B.Ramachandran .. Appellant
Vs.
1.V.Ignatius David
2.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
No.23, Spurtank Road
Chennai-31. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2014
made in M.C.O.P.No.1018 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
For R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1876 of 2014
(This matter is heard through “Video-Conferencing”)
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed for enhancement of
compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 09.01.2014 made
in M.C.O.P.No.1018 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The appellant is claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1018 of 2010 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai. He
filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation
for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on
12.01.2010.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence let in by the appellant, held that the accident has occurred only due
to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car belonging to the 1 st
respondent and directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company being insurer
of the said car to pay a sum of Rs.1,66,700/- as compensation to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1876 of 2014
appellant.
4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellant has come out with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the
accident, the appellant suffered pilon fracture on right ankle and communited
fracture on both bones lower 1/4th. The appellant examined the Doctor as
P.W.2 and marked the disability certificate as Ex.P9 to prove the nature of
injuries. P.W.2/Doctor after examining the appellant certified that he suffered
45% disability. The Tribunal without assigning any reason reduced the
disability to 40%. After the accident, the appellant could not do the work as
he was doing earlier and lost his earning capacity. The Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation towards loss of earning power. The appellant was
working as a laundry worker and was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per
month. The Tribunal awarded only a meagre sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss
of earning. The appellant has taken treatment as in-patient in Christudas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1876 of 2014
Orthopedic Specialty Hospital from 14.01.2010 to 20.01.2010, underwent
surgery and thereafter, continued his treatment as out-patient. The Tribunal
has not awarded any compensation towards attendant charges and loss of
amenities. The Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.36,403/- towards
medical expenses as per Ex.P6/medical bills instead of Rs.27,645/-. The
appellant is still taking treatment for the injuries and the Tribunal ought to
have awarded compensation towards future medical expenses. The amounts
awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are meagre and prayed for
enhancement of compensation.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company contended that the appellant has not proved
his avocation and income. In the absence of any material evidence, the amount
awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning is not meagre. The appellant
has also not proved that due to the injuries, he could not continue his work as
laundry worker and lost his earning capacity. Hence, he is not entitled to any
compensation towards loss of earning capacity. The total compensation
granted by the Tribunal is excessive. The appellant has not made out any case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1876 of 2014
for enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and his name is
printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him either in person or
through counsel.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and
perused the entire materials on record.
9.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the contention of the
appellant that in the accident, he suffered pilon fracture on right ankle and
communited fracture on both bones lower 1/4th. The appellant examined the
Doctor as P.W.2 and marked the disability certificate as Ex.P9 to prove the
nature of injuries. P.W.2/Doctor after examining the appellant certified that he
suffered 45% disability. The Tribunal reduced the disability to 40% on the
ground that disability assessed by P.W.2/Doctor is on the higher side. The said
reasoning is not correct. The appellant is entitled to compensation for 45%
disability. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1876 of 2014
of disability. The accident is of the year 2010 and hence, a sum of Rs.3,000/-
is awarded per percentage of disability. Thus, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal towards disability is modified to Rs.1,35,000/- (45% X
Rs.3,000/-).
9(i) It is the contention of the appellant that he was a laundry worker at
the time of accident and was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to
the injuries, he could not do the work as he was doing earlier. In the absence
of any evidence with regard to avocation and income of the appellant, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earning, which is
meagre. The accident is of the year 2010 and hence, a sum of Rs.6,000/- per
month is fixed as notional income of the appellant. Due to the injuries, the
appellant would not have attended his work atleast for a period of six months.
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning
during treatment period is modified to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.6,000/- X 6).
9(ii) The appellant has taken treatment as in-patient in Christudas
Orthopedic Specialty Hospital from 14.01.2010 to 20.01.2010, underwent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1876 of 2014
surgery and thereafter, continued his treatment as out-patient in the same
hospital till 10.09.2012. To prove the same, the appellant has produced
Ex.P5/discharge summary and Ex.P4/O.P. treatment records. The Tribunal has
not awarded any compensation towards attendant charges and loss of
amenities. Considering Exs.P4 and P5, Rs.15,000/- each are granted towards
attendant charges and loss of amenities. Considering the nature of injuries,
period of treatment taken and disability suffered by the appellant, the amounts
awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation and extra nourishment are
enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each as amounts awarded by the Tribunal are
meagre. The appellant claimed that he is entitled to Rs.36,405/- as
compensation towards medical expenses. The Tribunal considering in-patient
bill in item No.1 for Rs.28,758/-, accepted the payment receipt of Rs.20,000/-
and other bills produced, held that receipt for balance amount of Rs.3,000/-
alleged to be paid is not filed and awarded a sum of Rs.27,645/- towards
medical expenses. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any enhancement
of compensation towards medical expenses. The appellant has not produced
any document to show that he requires future medical expenses and therefore,
he is not entitled to any amount towards future medical expenses. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1876 of 2014
amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is just and
reasonable and hence, the same is hereby confirmed. Thus, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
S.No Description Amount awarded Amount Award
by Tribunal awarded by confirmed or
(Rs) this Court enhanced or
(Rs) granted or
reduced
1. Loss of earning 20,000 36,000 Enhanced
2. Transportation 7,000 10,000 Enhanced
3. Extra 7,000 10,000 Enhanced
nourishment
4. Medical 27,645 27,645 Confirmed
expenses
5. Pain and 25,000 25,000 Confirmed
suffering
6. Disability 80,000 1,35,000 Enhanced
7. Attendant - 15,000 Granted
charges
8. Loss of - 15,000 Granted
amenities
TOTAL 1,66,645 2,73,645 Enhanced by
rounded off to rounded off to Rs.1,07,000/-
1,66,700 2,73,700
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,66,700/- is hereby
enhanced to Rs.2,73,700/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1876 of 2014
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant is not
entitled to any interest for the dismissal of default period from 11.06.2012 to
16.12.2013. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs,
less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant
is permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court
along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. No
costs.
05.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
kj
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1876 of 2014
To
1.IV Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section
High Court, Chennai.
C.M.A.No.1876 of 2014
05.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
