Madras High Court
Thulasi vs L.Selvaraj on 17 June, 2022
C.M.A.No.694 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.No.694 of 2016
Thulasi ... Appellant
Vs
1.L.Selvaraj
2.New India Assurance Company Limited,
No.45, Moore Street,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2009
passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3970 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (III Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja
For R2 : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.694 of 2016
JUDGEMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.3970 of
2006 seeking an enhancement of the award passed in his favour.
2. The brief facts, which have culminated in the filing of this
appeal are as follows:
2.1 The appellant herein is employed as a Mason earning a sum of
Rs.250/- per day. On 06.09.2006, at about 10.00 hours, while the appellant
was repairing his two wheeler bearing registration number TN 22 AM
6347, a tipper lorry bearing registration number TN 04 B 2243 driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the appellant. The appellant
along with another person had sustained injuries by the reason of the
accident. Therefore, he had sought a compensation of a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.694 of 2016
2.2 The first respondent/owner of the tipper lorry remained absent
and so, set ex parte.
2.3 The second respondent/insurance company, in which, the
tipper lorry was insured, filed their counter statement denying the accident
and also the quantum of compensation demanded by the appellant.
2.4 The tribunal below on considering the evidence held that the
driver of the tipper lorry was responsible for the accident, as he had driven
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The tribunal has thereafter fixed
the compensation at a sum of Rs.1,81,000/-. After adopting the disability
assessed by Dr.J.R.R.Thiagarajan (PW3) and considering the fact that the
disability has not affected the future prospects of the appellant, the tribunal
has calculated the loss on a percentage basis.
2.5 However, aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the
appellant is before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.694 of 2016
3. Mr.F.Terry Chella Raj, learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant
had sustained a fracture not only to his femur as well as to his right knee,
apart from sustaining multiple injuries over body. The tribunal ought to
have taken note of the fact that the appellant was employed as Mason and
therefore, by the reason of those injuries, his chances of carrying on the
work as before has been largely impaired. Therefore, the compensation
ought to be enhanced.
4. Per contra, Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the
second respondent/insurance company would submit that no evidence has
been let in to show that the injuries had impacted the future prospects of the
appellant. Even the disability certificate issued by Dr.J.R.R.Thiagarajan
(PW3), which has been marked as Ex-P8, does not show that the future
activities of the appellant has been compromised. Therefore, the award
requires no reconsideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.694 of 2016
5. Heard Mr.F.Terry Chella Raj, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the second respondent.
6. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the tribunal has not
considered the nature of injuries sustained by him and its impact on his
future prospects.
7. Admittedly, the appellant has sustained a fracture to his femur
and also to the knee of his right leg. This, to some extent, would constrict
the activities of the appellant at least for some period of time. The tribunal
was right in adopting the percentage method for assessing the loss.
However, the tribunal should have adopted a sum of Rs.2,000/- per
percentage of disability, when calculating under the head of permanent
disability. Except for this head, the award is otherwise in order and it
requires no reconsideration.
8. Consequently, the modified award would be as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.694 of 2016
Amount awarded by Amount awarded by
Heading
the tribunal (in Rs.) this Court (in Rs.)
Loss of earning 15,000/- 15,000/-
Transport to hospital 5,000/- 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 20,000/- 20,000/-
Loss of future earning 1,000/- 1,000/-
Medical expenses 5,000/- 5,000/-
Loss of amenities 20,000/- 20,000/-
Loss of expectation of life 5,000/- 5,000/-
Pain and suffering 40,000/- 40,000/-
Permanent disability 70,000/- 1,40,000/-
Total 1,81,000/- 2,51,000/-
9. The appellant shall pay the Court fee for the enhanced
compensation amount, if required. The second respondent/insurance
company shall deposit the enhanced award amount together with interest at
7.5% within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The appellant shall show proof of payment of the Court fee and only on
such proof, he shall be permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited. The
petitioner shall not be entitled to the interest for a period of 1406 days as
per the order dated 21.03.2016 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in
C.M.A.No.SR66972 of 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.694 of 2016
In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. No costs.
17.06.2022
nsd
To
The III Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(III Small Causes Court),
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.694 of 2016
P.T.ASHA, J.
nsd
C.M.A.No.694 of 2016
17.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
