Madras High Court
V.Anandan @ Anbuselvan vs M.Senthil Kumar on 24 March, 2022
CMA.No.372 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :24.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.A.No.372 of 2014
V.Anandan @ Anbuselvan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.M.Senthil Kumar
2.M/s.New India Insurance Company Limited,
No.2, Main Road, Dindugal.
3.C.Satheesh Kumar
... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in MCOP
No.504 of 2002 dated 06.11.2009 on the file of MACT/Principal District
Court at Namakkal.
For Appellant : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sivakumar for R2
Notice unserved for R1 and R3
JUDGMENT
The claimant in MCOP No.504 of 2002 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Namakkal is the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.372 of 2014
herein. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the judgment
dated 06.11.2009, the claimant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the second respondent/New India
Assurance Company Limited. Notice sent by this Court to R1 and R3 were
returned unserved and respondents No.1 and 3 had remained ex parte before
the Tribunal and there is no representation on behalf of them before this
Court also.
3. A perusal of the records shows that the accident, necessitating filing
of the claim petition, had taken place on 16.02.2002 at about 5:30 hours,
when the petitioner was going in his bicycle to his agricultural field for the
purpose of irrigation, in fact, he went to gather the agricultural labourers to
do the necessary agricultural work on the extreme left side of the road. At
that time, the 1st respondent's vehicle Maruthi car bearing Reg.No.TN 58
3993 driven by his driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant
while overtaking a lorry carrying river sand and the car ran over the right leg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.372 of 2014
of the claimant, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained crush injury and
also minor bruises all over the body. The petitioner was immediately taken to
Aravinth Nursing Home, Namakkal by a car and was admitted in the hospital.
The Medical Officer advised the petitioner that his right leg has to be
amputated and accordingly the leg was amputated. The petitioner has spent
more than Rs.1,50,000/- for his medical treatment and he could not perform
his only known profession of agriculture. He can no more carry out his
agricultural pursuits as he cannot get into the land with one leg. Alleging
that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the lorry, the claimant claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. However,
the Tribunal has awarded a compensation under certain heads for a sum of
Rs.1,87,000/-, but erroneously mentioned in decree as Rs.1,95,000/-.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that since
the amount awarded by the Tribunal is meager on all the heads, the claimant
is entitled for higher compensation. He would further contend that at the
time of accident, the injured was 35 years and was hale and healthy. Further,
the claimant suffered 80 % disability, but the Tribunal has fixed the disability
at 60% and granted a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- under the head permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.372 of 2014
disability. In order to prove the disability of the claimant, Ex.P.7 (Disability
Certificate) has been marked before the Tribunal. Therefore, he prays for
awarding just and reasonable compensation for future treatment including
cost of artificial leg which require periodical replacement.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent
Insurance Company submitted that the impugned Judgment and Decree
awarding the aforesaid compensation is well reasoned and it requires no
interference and therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be
dismissed and no enhancement is necessary.
6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1,
examined one Govindaraj (P.W.2) as eye witness and Dr.Mani as P.W.3 and
marked 8 Documents as Exs.P1 to P8.
7. This Court carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent/Insurance Company and perused the materials available
on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.372 of 2014
8.The claimant aged about 35 years is an agriculturist and earning a
sum of Rs.6000 /- per mensem. Due to the accident, which took place on
16.02.2002, he suffered permanent disability. The disability was assessed by
the Doctor as 80% and disability certificate (Ex.P7) was also issued to that
effect. However, the Tribunal took into consideration only 60% disability
and granted a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards per percentage of disability and
awarded Rs.1,20,000/- under the head “Permanent Disability”. In the present
case, the physical disability resulted in loss of leg. The appellant who is a
farmer had suffered disability which is of 80% will definitely affects his
earning capacity. In such circumstances, scaling down the percentage of
disability by the Tribunal is not acceptable. Since the damages on account of
amputation of leg resulted in 80% disability, this Court is of the view that the
compensation granted by the Tribunal is not adequate even under other
heads. Accordingly, under the head “Permanent Disability”, this Court is
inclined to recompute 80% disability, then the compensation awarded under
the head of Permanent Disability would come to Rs.1,60,000/-. Therefore,
disability of the claimant is fixed at 80% and a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- is
awarded under the head 'Permanent Disability'. Further, the Tribunal has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.372 of 2014
awarded only a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head 'Pain and Suffering'. This
Court feels that an enhancement by Rs.60,000/- would be a just and
reasonable compensation under the said head. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.80,000/- is awarded under the head 'Pain and Sufferings'. Further, the
Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head 'Extra
Nourishment'. This Court feels that an enhancement by Rs.20,000/- would be
a just and reasonable compensation under the said head. Accordingly, a sum
of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head 'Extra Nourishment'. Further, the
Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head
'Transportation'. This Court feels that an enhancement by Rs.15,000/- would
be a just and reasonable compensation under the said head. Accordingly, a
sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the head 'Transportation'.
The appellant/claimant suffered disability to the extent of 80% from
amputation of his leg on the ground of disability. Therefore, this Court feels
to grant a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- as compensation under the head 'Artificial
leg' and Rs.50,000/- under the head 'Future Medical Expenses'. However, the
compensation awarded under the head “Medical Expenses” and “Loss of
Income” during the treatment period is just and reasonable and the same is
confirmed. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.372 of 2014
appellant/claimant is re-quantified as follows:-
Heads Amount awarded Amount Award
by the Tribunal modified/ confirmed or
Rs. awarded by enhanced or
this Court granted
Permanent Disability 2000 x 60% 2000 x 80% Enhanced
1,20,000/- 1,60,000/-
Transport to Hospital 5,000/- 20,000/- Enhanced
Extra Nourishment 20,000/- 25,000/- Enhanced
Medical expenses 35,000/- 35,000/- Confirmed
Pain and Sufferings 20,000/- 80,000/- Enhanced
Loss of income 2000/- 2,000/- Confirmed
Artificial leg - 1,35,000/- Granted
Future Medical Expenses - 50,000/- Granted
1,87,000/- 5,07,000/- Enhanced by
Total Rs.3,20,000/-
9. The total compensation is thus enhanced to Rs.5,07,000/- from
Rs.1,87,000/-.
10. In such view of the matter, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to pay the enhanced
compensation of Rs.5,07,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and seven thousand only)
with accrued interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition
till the date of realisation excluding the periods from 09.06.2005 to
09.01.2009 and 18.06.2009 to 28.07.2009 with costs, less the amount already
deposited, if any, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.372 of 2014
of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted
to withdraw the same along with interest and costs, less the amount if any,
already withdrawn by making necessary application before the Tribunal.
24.03.2022
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
msv
To
1. The Judge,
MACT/Principal District Court at Namakkal
2.V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.372 of 2014
J.NISHA BANU,J.
Msv
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.No.372 of 2014
24.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
