Madras High Court

Minor Dhanasekar vs P.Sridhar on 15 June, 2022

                                                                         C.M.A.No.1150 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 15.06.2022

                                                    CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
                                                   and
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                             C.M.A.No.1150 of 2022

                  Minor Dhanasekar
                  Represented by his mother
                  and next friend Dhatchayani                                ... Appellant

                                                      Vs.

                  1.P.Sridhar

                  2.The New India Assurance Company Limited
                  Motor Third Party Claims Office
                  No.232, Bombay Mutual Building
                  6th floor, NSC Bose Road
                  Chennai-600 001.                                          ... Respondents


                  Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor

                  Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2021 made

                  in M.C.O.P.No.7264 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

                  II Small Causes Court, Chennai.



                  1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                C.M.A.No.1150 of 2022




                                            For Appellant    : Mr.R.Nalliyappan

                                            For R2          :   Mr.J.Chandran


                                                      JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant

seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award

dated 20.11.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.7264 of 2018 on the file of Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2.The minor appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.7264 of 2018 on

the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai.

The minor appellant represented by his mother filed the said claim petition

claiming a sum of Rs.73,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained

by him in the accident that took place on 14.10.2018.

3.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1150 of 2022

the driver of the mini bus belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the

2nd respondent/Insurance Company being insurer of the said mini bus to pay

a sum of Rs.20,74,300/- as compensation to the appellant.

4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the

appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the

injured appellant was a minor boy aged 13 years and was studying IX

standard at the time of accident. The Tribunal erred in fixing meagre sum of

Rs.9,000/- as monthly income of the appellant and the Tribunal ought to have

applied multiplier '18' instead of '15'. In the accident, the appellant suffered

fractures over his ribs, hip and multiple injuries all over the body. Due to the

injuries, the right hand of the appellant was amputated. After the accident, he

could not continue his studies properly. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the

disability at 100% and awarded compensation towards loss of earning due to

disability. The Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Government

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1150 of 2022

Medical College Hospital, Chengalpattu, assessed the disability of the

appellant at 90%. The Tribunal without any reason, reduced the disability to

80%. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant lost his

marital prospects. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards

loss of marital prospects and 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 was aged 14

years and was studying IX standard at the time of accident. The Tribunal has

rightly applied multiplier '15'. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under

different heads are excessive. The appellant has not made out any case for

enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company and perused all the materials available on

record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1150 of 2022

8.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the

appellant that in the accident, he suffered fractures over his ribs, hip and

multiple injuries all over the body. Due to the injuries, the right hand of the

appellant was amputated. According to the appellant, he suffered 90%

disability. To substantiate his case, the appellant relied on Ex.P10/Disability

certificate issued by the Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics,

Government Medical College Hospital, Chengalpat, who certified that the

appellant suffered 90% disability. According to the appellant, due to

amputation, he could not continue his studies and the Tribunal ought to have

fixed the disability of the appellant at 100%, but the Tribunal erroneously

reduced the disability to 80% without any reason. This contention of the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not acceptable as appellant has

not let in any evidence to show that he suffered 100% disability and he could

not do his day-to-day activities without help of others. Further no document

was marked to show that his studies were affected and he could not continue

his studies. The Tribunal in the absence of material evidence, considering the

fact that the injury suffered by the appellant is a schedule injury, fixed 80%

disability. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1150 of 2022

8(i).The appellant was minor at the time of accident and he was a

non-earning member. Due to amputation of his right hand, his studies and

avocation will be reduced. His prospect of earning decent income will also be

reduced. The Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month as notional

income of the appellant. Considering the age and nature of injuries sustained

by the minor boy, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is enhanced to

Rs.12,000/-. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant that Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier '18' instead of '15' is

contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2)

TNMAC 1 SC (Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

and another). The appellant was aged 14 years at the time of accident. The

Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier '15'. The Tribunal, following the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC)

[National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others], granted 40%

enhancement towards future prospects. By fixing a sum of Rs.12,000/- per

month as notional income, the amount granted by the Tribunal towards loss of

earning due to disability is modified to Rs.24,19,200/- (Rs.12,000/- + 4800

(Rs.12,000/- X 40%) X 12 X 15 X 80/100).

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1150 of 2022

8(ii).The appellant has taken treatment as in-patient in MIOT

International Hospital from 14.10.2018 to 02.11.2018, underwent two

surgeries and his right hand was amputated. The Tribunal considering

Ex.P3/discharge summary, held that the appellant could be required an

attendar for another 39 days and awarded a sum of Rs.24,000/- (Rs.400/- X

60) towards attendant charges for totally 60 days by fixing Rs.400/- per day.

The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards attendant charges, loss of

amenities and extra nourishment are meagre. Considering the injuries

sustained by the minor appellant and period of treatment taken, the amounts

awarded by the Tribunal towards attendant charges, loss of amenities and

extra nourishment are hereby enhanced to Rs.60,000/-, Rs.75,000/- and

Rs.75,000/- respectively. Considering the age of the minor student and the

fact that his right hand has been amputated, his marital prospects will be

reduced, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of marital prospects.

The appellant has not produced any document to prove that he is still taking

treatment and therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation towards future

medical expenses. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under all other

heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby confirmed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1150 of 2022

Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:

S.No Description Amount Amount Award
awarded by awarded by this confirmed or
Tribunal Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of earning 18,14,400 24,19,200 Enhanced
due to
disability
2. Medical 25,851 25,851 Confirmed
expenses
3. Attendant 24,000 60,000 Enhanced
charges
4. Loss of 10,000 75,000 Enhanced
amenities
5. Loss of 10,000 10,000 Confirmed
expectation of
life
6. Pain and 1,50,000 1,50,000 Confirmed
suffering
7. Extra 25,000 75,000 Enhanced
nourishment
8. Transportation 15,000 15,000 Confirmed
9. Loss of marital - 1,00,000 Granted
prospects
Total 20,74,251 29,30,051 Enhanced by

rounded off to rounded off to Rs.8,55,800/-

20,74,300 29,30,100

9.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.20,74,300/- is hereby

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1150 of 2022

enhanced to Rs.29,30,100/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant is

directed to pay necessary Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation.

The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire 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 award of the minor