S.Murugesan vs R.Janakiraman
2022 Latest Caselaw 5761 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5761 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 March, 2022

Madras High Court

S.Murugesan vs R.Janakiraman on 22 March, 2022

                                                           1

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED:      22.03.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

                                                CMA No. 1107 of 2018


                   S.Murugesan                                     ... Appellant/Petitioner

                                                          Vs

                   1. R.Janakiraman
                   (since R1 remained exparte before the Tribunal his presence may be
                   dispensed with)

                   2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.,
                      No.115/116, Second Floor
                      Oriental House
                      Prakasam Salai, Broadway
                      Chennai – 600 108.              ... Respondents/Respondents

                   Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.
                   Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.03.2017 and made
                   in M.A.C.T.O.P.No. 402 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
                   Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
                                                         ***
                                    For Appellant     : Mr. F.Terry Chella Raja

                                    For 1st Respondent: Ex-parte

                                    For 2nd Respondent : Mr. D.Baskaran

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                            2

                                                  JUDGMENT

I had the pleasure of hearing Mr. F.Terry Chella Raja, learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr.D.Baskaran, learned counsel for the

second respondent.

2. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No. 402 of 2013, which was pending

on the file of the III Court of Small Causes Chennai, is the appellant

herein.

3. The claimant had a necessity to file a claim petition, owing to the

fact that when he was riding his motor bike bearing registration No. TMF

3083 at Arcot Road, Vadapalani, opposite to Vijaya Hospital another

motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN23 AV 9506 belonging to the first

respondent dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner and the

claimant suffered bodily injuries. This accident occurred on 28.10.2012 at

9.00 p.m.

4. The Tribunal had examined various circumstances and also

observed that the first respondent did not have any driving license and also

examined Exhibits R-1 to R-4. The Tribunal determined that the

negligence was on the part of the first respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. I would affirm such finding.

6. With respect to the grant of compensation, the Tribunal had

examined the evidence of PW-2 / Doctor, who stated that the claimant was

in a position to continue to do the work, which he was doing. The work

was as a server in a Hotel. He had suffered right hand fracture in the

wrist.

7. It had been vehemently argued by Mr. F.Terry Chella Raja,

learned counsel for the appellant that owing to this particular fracture,

continuation of work as a Server would be affected and therefore, the

disability granted at 40% by the Tribunal should be interfered with and the

opinion of the Doctor determining 55% partial permanent disability should

have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal.

8. It is however seen that the Tribunal has also granted

compensation under various heads, namely,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

(i) pain and suffering : Rs.40,000/-

                             (ii) mental and physical
                                shock                         :   Rs.10,000/-

                             (iii) Loss of amenities          :   Rs.25,000/-

9. The aforementioned three heads of compensation have been very

seriously assailed by Mr.D.Baskaran, learned counsel for the second

respondent. The disability had been fixed at 40% and Rs.3,000/- had been

taken per percentage. The Loss of Income had been given at Rs.30,750/-.

10. Taking into consideration all the factors, it would only be

appropriate that there is no interference with the above amount granted.

Even if the percentage of disability is interfered with, this Court would

necessarily then have to interfere with the compensation granted under the

aforementioned three heads.

11. Any claim under the Motor Vehicles Act being a welfare

legislation, will have to be adjudged based on the injuries suffered and the

nature of the employment and the compensation granted. It is the final