Madras High Court
A.Karunanidhi vs Senthil Kumar on 1 July, 2022
C.M.A.No.4022 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.No.4022 of 2019
A.Karunanidhi ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs
1.Senthil Kumar
2.TATA AIG Insurance Company Limited
113/134, Raheja Towers, Anna Salai
Chennai. ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1989 (Act IV of 1939) praying to enhance the award against
the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.230 of 2014 on
the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Namakkal.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Thangaraju
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.4022 of 2019
For Respondent-1: Served-No Appearance
For Respondent-2: Mr.K.Vinod
JUDGEMENT
Seeking enhancement of the Award, the petitioner before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal has filed
this appeal.
2. The facts in brief are as follows:-
(i) The appellant herein had filed M.C.O.P.No.230 of 2014 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Namakkal, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by him in a road accident. It is his case that on
01.11.2013 at about 11.00 pm, he was travelling in a two wheeler, bearing
Registration No.TN-28-AA-7764 and proceeding on the Namakkal to
Valayapatti road keeping to the extreme left. While so, the motor-cycle
bearing Registration No.TN-30-AF 3424 came in the opposite direction, the
vehicle was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, as a result
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.4022 of 2019
of which, it had hit the petitioner's vehicle causing him to suffer grievous
injury. The motor-cycle belonged to the first respondent and was insured
with the second respondent-Insurance Company.
(ii) The rider of the bike had been charge sheeted and since the
vehicle has been insured with the second respondent, the second respondent
was also impleaded. The first respondent remained ex-parte and the second
respondent-Insurance Company had filed a counter stating that the accident
had occurred on account of the negligence of the petitioner himself.
Therefore, considering the fact that he has contributed to the accident, the
Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify for his loss.
3. The Tribunal below, after considering the evidence on record,
held the negligence with the driver of the first respondent's vehicle, since
there was a violation of the policy conditions in as much as the driver of the
motor-cycle did not possess a valid driving licence. The Tribunal had
directed the second respondent-Insurance Company to pay the entire
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.4022 of 2019
compensation and recover the same from the first respondent. Aggrieved by
the fact that the Tribunal below has granted compensation by adopting
percentage method instead of the multiplier method, the appellant is before
this Court.
4. Mr.K.Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent-Insurance Company would contend that the disability certificate
issued by P.W2-Doctor cannot be relied upon, since in the said certificate,
P.W2 would state that 2, 3, 4 and 5 fingers in the left leg of the appellant
had been amputated. However, the said statement is proved to be false, on a
mere perusal of the photographs filed in typed set of papers. Therefore, he
would submit that the disability calculated on the basis of disability
certificate-Ex.P10 granted by P.W2 has to be accepted with the pinch of
salt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.4022 of 2019
5. Heard both counsels and perused the materials available on
record.
6. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the second
respondent, enhancement is sought for only on the basis of the disability
assessed by P.W2-Doctor has not been properly considered by the Tribunal,
as result of which, the Tribunal has awarded compensation on a percentage
basis. However, a perusal of the report as set out in the order and a glance
at the photographs of the appellant, which has been produced by the
appellant would clearly show that what has stated in the certificate is an
absolutely false statement. A perusal of the injuries suffered does indicate
that that the appellant has suffered a disability, which however does not
hinder the appellant's movements nor has it caused any loss of earnings.
Therefore, the adoption of percentage method by the Tribunal below is in
order. The Insurance Company has not challenged the award. Therefore, I
do not deem it fit to reduce the assessment of disability, as requested by the
learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. I see no reason for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.4022 of 2019
enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
01.07.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
srn
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Namakkal.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.4022 of 2019
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
C.M.A.No.4022 of 2019
01.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
