Madras High Court
Mahendran vs R.Srinivasan on 22 March, 2022
C.M.A.No.2695 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED : 22.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.No.2695 of 2019
and
CMP.No.11990 of 2019
1.Mahendran ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.Srinivasan
2.The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Ram Complex, 29, Paramathi Road,
Namakkal Town. ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.10.2020
made in M.C.O.P.No.421 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Thangaraju
For Respondents :Mr.K.Vinod for R2
No Appearance for R1
JUDGMENT
The claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the
award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial
Magistrate), Namakkal, in M.C.O.P.No.421 of 2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2695 of 2022
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 13/06/2008 he was
acting as a cleaner in the Truck multi Axle goods vehicle bearing
Registration No.TN-28/AA-3575 belonging to the first respondent and
insured with the second respondent. The driver of the said vehicle had driven
the same in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the stationary truck
bearing Registration No.KA-25/B176. On account of the impact, he had
sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He had sustained injuries to his
back bone, hip and his spinal cord was completely damaged rendering him
permanently/partially disabled. Therefore, he claimed compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents. The first respondent had not chosen
to contest the petition and remained ex-parte. The second
respondent/insurance company had taken the plea denying the negligence,
liability etc., and also contending that the driver of the lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-25B-176 was equally responsible for the accident as
they had stationed their vehicle on the road without following the rules
regarding signaling.
3. The Tribunal below on considering the evidence and
arguments had arrived at compensation of Rs.13,60,758/-. The Tribunal has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2695 of 2022
taken a notional income of just Rs.3,000/- and awarded compensation of a
sum of Rs.7,34,400/-.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit
that the Doctor who had examined him had assessed his disability at 90%.
It is opined that the injury to the spinal cord has completely rendered the
appellant incapable of any work and infact the disability is near total. It is
also to be borne in mind that he was working as a cleaner prior to this
accident. The appellant would contend that the Tribunal below ought to
have fixed the notional income at Rs.7,700/- and adopted the multiplier
method and taken a multiplier of 18 and taken permanent disability at
100%. The amounts awarded under the other heads also required to be
enhanced.
5. Per contra, Mr.K.Vinoth, learned counsel appearing on
behalf the respondent/insurance company would contend that the Tribunal
below has not only granted amount under the head 'pain and suffering', but
also granted a like amount under the head of loss of amenities. He would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2695 of 2022
submit that the compensation granted for disability is very fair and does not
require to be revisited. He therefore, sought to sustain the award with the
amount granted under the head of loss of amenities being set aside.
6. Heard the learned counsel.
7. It is a fact that the appellant had sustained a very serious
injury, as a result of which, he has suffered a partial permanent disability,
which according to the Doctor is nearly 60% and the injuries would indicate
that the appellant would not be in a position to resume any activity as two
discs in the spinal cord have been broken. Since the appellant has not been
able to produce proof of his income a notional income at Rs.4,000/ is taken
as the accident is of the year 2008. 40% could be added towards additional
prospects. Therefore, the monthly income would workout to a sum of
Rs.5,600/-. The appellant is aged about 21 years and the life before him
appears to be very bleak. Therefore the loss under the head of disability
would be Rs.5,600/-*12*18*90/100=10,88,640/-. The award granted under
the head of loss of amenities has to be necessarily deleted since under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2695 of 2022
head of pain and suffering, the appellant has been awarded a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-. A further sum of Rs.30,000/- can be added under the head of
transport charges. Considering the fact that the appellant is still unable to
walk and requires constant medical attention, the award under the head of
transport charges should be enhanced to a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore,
the calculation of enhanced amount awarded by this Court under various
heads are tabulated below:
Loss of disability Rs.10,88,640/-
Loss of pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-
Nutritious food Rs.30,000/-
Loss of transportation Rs.50,000/-
Loss of marital life Rs.50,000/-
Loss of attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
Loss of medical expenses Rs.2,06,358
Total Rs.16,44,998/-
8. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the
compensation of Rs.13,60,758/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced by this
Court to Rs.16,44,998/- along with interest at the 7.5% per annum as
awarded by the tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2695 of 2022
enhanced compensation amount awarded by this Court along with interest at
7.5% per annum, less the amount, if any already deposited, to the credit of
MCOP.No.421 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Appellant shall pay Court
fees for the compensation awarded if not already paid. On such payment and
on proof of the same being shown, the Appellant is permitted to withdraw
the award amount. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw
the same. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
22.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
ub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2695 of 2022
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Namakkal.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2695 of 2022
P.T. ASHA, J,
ub
C.M.A.No.2695 of 2019
and
CMP.No.11990 of 2019
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
