Madras High Court
/Claimant vs V.Sekar on 3 March, 2022
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 03.03.2022 PROUNOUNED ON : 10.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
1.P.Ponnammal (died)
2.P.Ramasamy
[R2 brought on record vide
order dated 03.03.2022
vide CMP.Nos.11723 of 2021] ... Appellant
/Claimant
Vs.
1.V.Sekar
2.S.Senthilkumar
3.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Arunagiri Complex, 25/C, Bye-Pass Road
Hosur, Krishnagiri District . PIN 635 109. ..Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Sub Court) Perundurai, in MCOP.No.132 of 2009 dated 11.11.2010.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
For Appellant : Mr.M.Rajeev Gandhi
for Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sivakumar for 3rd respondent.
R1 and R2 – no appearance
R1- unserved.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/injured claimant seeking enhancement
of compensation. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant-Ponnammal died
on 15.05.2017. Her son P.Ramasamy who is the sole legal representative of the
deceased is brought on record.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the averments of the claimant in
MCOP.No.132 of 2009 is that on 13.02.2009 at about 3.45 p.m., while the
petitioner was travelling on the moped as pillion rider, her husband was riding the
said moped, when the moped was nearing Bharat Petrol Bunk, Perundurai to
Chennimalai road, the first respondent carelessly drove the lorry TAA 7479 in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed on the moped and thereby the
petitioner/appellant sustained grievous injuries and her husband died on the spot.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
The petitioner was taken to KMCH, Perundurai and she was referred to KMCH
Coimbatore, for further treatment from 13.02.2009 to 11.03.2009 as in-patient.
The claimant having undergone, amputation and skin grafting said to have
suffering with permanent disability and disfiguration. The claimant claimed
Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation by filing MCOP.No.132/2009.
3. The Tribunal, after going through evidence let in before it, awarded a
sum of Rs.2,82,157/- as compensation to the claimant. The learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant raised the issue that the Tribunal erred in fixing the disability at
25% when P.W.2/doctor assessed disability at 46% under Ex.P.13. P.W.2 is an
expert witness and his evidence cannot be brushed aside while fixing the disability
percentage.
4. This court gone through the impugned Award carefully. It is seen that
P.W.2 doctor opined that the appellant sustained 46% permanent disability. The
appellant has lost 3 left foot fingers and amputation done; she got fracture on her
right hand, also sustained permanent disfigurement. The injured was doing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
agriculture, cultivating vegetable and also doing milk vending. The
appellant/claimant would have definitely earned Rs.5000/- per month before the
accident. But due to the accident, she suffered amputation of foot fingers and
suffered disfigurement and therefore, should could not have been able to do her
work as before and therefore, filed the appeal.
5. It is a matter of record that this appeal has been admitted on 23.01.2014
and the appellant was pursuing the matter before this court. However, she died on
15.05.2017 and there was a delay to bring the LRs on record. In such a situation,
this court is of the view that for the pain and suffering underwent by the injured,
the appeal filed by her needs proper justification. Therefore, for the disability
suffered due to the accident, applying multiplier method to arrive at permanent
disability compensation is just and proper. Accordingly, as per the assessment of
doctor/expert, 46% permanent disability is taken for determining compensation.
The calculation is as under:-
Monthly income – Rs.5,000/-
Deduction : 1/3rd
Multiplier : 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
5000 x 1/3 = 1666 rounded off to Rs. 1700/-
1700x 11 x 12 = 2,24,400/-.
Therefore, the compensation under the head permanent disability is now enhanced
from Rs.30,000/- to 2,24,400/-.
6. Under Medical Bills / Ex.P.10 series, Rs.2,34,907/- has been claimed and
the tribunal awarded Rs.2,34,907/-. During the period of treatment, the appellant
would have suffered loss of income. Therefore, for 3 months, Rs.15,000/- is
awarded as loss of income during the period of treatment. Under the head “Extra
Nourishment” tribunal awarded Rs.3000/-; for “Pain and suffering”, Tribunal
awarded Rs.5000/- which this court feels as inadequate, so it has been enhanced
as Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively.
7. Except for the above heads, the compensation granted under other heads
are confirmed. The modified compensation by this court is as under:-
Sl. Particulars Tribunal Award Compensation
No. (in Rs.) modified by this
court
(in Rs)
Permanent disability 30,000/- 2,24,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
Sl. Particulars Tribunal Award Compensation
No. (in Rs.) modified by this
court
(in Rs)
Transport to hospital 5,000/- 5,000/-
Loss of income during 3,750/- 15,000/-
the period of treatment
Extra nourishment 3,000/ 5,000/-
Damage to clothes 500/- 500/-
Medical Bills 2,34,907/- 2,34,907/-
Pain and suffering 5,000/- 10,000/-
Total 2,82,157/- 4,94,407/-
8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is Partly Allowed. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,82,157/- is enhanced to
Rs.4,94,407/-. The tribunal held that first respondent is the driver, the second
respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending
lorry and all of them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The said
finding stands confirmed. The respondents are directed to deposit the modified
compensation of Rs.4,94,407/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum along
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
with interest and cost before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant+/Legal
Representative is permitted to withdraw the same. No costs.
10.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
nvsri
To
1.The Sub Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Perundurai
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
J.NISHA BANU,J.
nvsri
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
10.06.2022
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
J. NISHA BANU, J.
Today, the matter is listed under the caption 'for being mentioned'.
2. It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the order
passed by this Court in this Appeal dated 10.06.2022, interest with regard to the
delayed period has not been mentioned and therefore, he seeks for grant of
interest for the delay period of 361 days in filing the appeal and for the delay
period of 818 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to
the death of the sole appellant, Ponnammal. Though both the condone delay
petitions were ordered on 06.12.2013 and 03.03.2022 respectively, waiver of
interest for the delayed period was not mentioned in the said orders. Hence, he
would pray for grant of interest for the delayed period of 361 days and 818 days,
totally 1179 days.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company strongly opposed
for the grant of interest for the delayed period.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The Appellant has filed the appeal with a delay of 361 days and in the
order dated 06.12.2013 passed by this Court, there is no mention about the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
interest for the delayed period. The sole appellant died in the year 2017. Though
the appellant has taken steps to file the petition to set aside the abatement in the
year 2019, he was able to number the petition only in the year 2021. Hence,
there was a delay of 818 days. The sole appellant who is the mother of the
present appellant, died on 15.05.2017. The appellant has not taken any steps for
the past two years and had filed the petition to set aside the abatement with a
petition to condone the delay only in the year 2019 and thereafter, no steps were
not taken and the appellant was able to number the petition only in the year 2021.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled for grant
of interest for the delayed period for both 361 days and 818 days, totally 1179
days. Hence, it is clarified that the appellant is not entitled for the delayed period
of 1179 days.
30.06.2022
vsi
J.NISHA BANU,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
vsi
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
30.06.2022
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
J. NISHA BANU, J.
Today, the matter is listed under the caption 'for being mentioned'.
2. It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the order
passed by this Court in this Appeal dated 10.06.2022, interest with regard to the
delayed period has not been mentioned and therefore, he seeks for grant of
interest for the delay period of 361 days in filing the appeal and for the delay
period of 818 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to
the death of the sole appellant, Ponnammal. Though both the condone delay
petitions were ordered on 06.12.2013 and 03.03.2022 respectively, waiver of
interest for the delayed period was not mentioned in the said orders. Hence, he
would pray for grant of interest for the delayed period of 361 days and 818 days,
totally 1179 days.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company strongly opposed
for the grant of interest for the delayed period.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The Appellant has filed the appeal with a delay of 361 days and in the
order dated 06.12.2013 passed by this Court, there is no mention about the
interest for the delayed period. The sole appellant died in the year 2017. Though
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
the appellant has taken steps to file the petition to set aside the abatement in the
year 2019, he was able to number the petition only in the year 2021. Hence,
there was a delay of 818 days. The sole appellant who is the mother of the
present appellant, died on 15.05.2017. The appellant has not taken any steps for
the past two years and had filed the petition to set aside the abatement with a
petition to condone the delay only in the year 2019 and thereafter, no steps were
not taken and the appellant was able to number the petition only in the year 2021.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled for grant
of interest for the delayed period for both 361 days and 818 days, totally 1179
days. Hence, it is clarified that the appellant is not entitled for the delayed period
of 1179 days.
30.06.2022
vsi
J.NISHA BANU,J.
Vsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
C.M.A.No.3759 of 2013
30.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
