Madras High Court
Rani vs Babu on 29 March, 2022
C.M.A.No.3540 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.3540 of 2019
Rani ... Appellant
-Vs.-
1.Babu
(Since R1 remained exparte before the Tribunal,
his presence may be dispensed with)
2.The Divisional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
No.1, Officer's Line, Vellore. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 21.02.2018 made
in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.195 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Court of Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellant : Ms.A.Subadra
For R1 : Exparte
For R2 : Ms.C.Sangamithirai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3540 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The claimant is the appellant before this Court seeking enhancement of
the award dated 21.02.2018 passed by the learned Special Sub Judge, MACT,
Tiruvannamalai in M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2017.
2. The brief facts are as follows:-
The claimant had sustained injuries in a road accident involving the JCB
vehicle belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second
respondent. It is her case that on 10.07.2016 at 7.30 p.m., while she was
working in her field, the driver of the first respondent's JCB vehicle was
removing a palm tree in the adjacent land. He drove the vehicle in such a rash
and negligent manner carrying the palm tree and that the palm tree fell on the
claimant, as a result of which, she had sustained fracture on her both knees and
injuries all over the body. Therefore, the claimant has filed a claim petition,
seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. The first respondent remained absent and was set ex-parte. The
second respondent-Insurance Company had contested the case on all grounds
available under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. They had pleaded that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3540 of 2019
the accident had occurred only on account of the negligence of the appellant,
since she has suddenly crossed the vehicle. They would further submit that
there is a delay in filing the F.I.R, though the Police Station was near the site of
the accident. They had also raised a plea that the driver of the JCB was not
competent to drive the JCB vehicle, as he has possessed only Light Motor
Vehicle driving licence. They had in all stated that the compensation claimed
was too high and the claimant is not entitled to any compensation.
4. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence on record, proceeded to
award the compensation under the head of Functional Disability on a
percentage basis. However, the Tribunal has not given any reasons for
awarding so. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
5. It is the contention of the appellant that she had been assessed to a
disability of 40% and she had also adduced evidence to show that she is unable
to carry on the work as before. She was working as an agricultural coolie and
the accident had also occurred, when she was so engaged. The statement has
not been rebutted by the respondent, nor have they been able to elicit any
contra evidence from the appellant. Therefore, it is her contention that the
Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier method, since the appellant is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3540 of 2019
unable to function as before, which has resulted in her losing her income
considerably.
6. Ms.C.Sangamithirai, learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent-Insurance Company, contended that the Tribunal has rightly
awarded the compensation on a percentage basis, since the injuries are not a
permanent or partial disablement and they were only simple injuries, which did
not affect the future work of the appellant.
7. Heard both counsels and perused the materials available on
record.
8. A perusal of Exhibit C-1-Disability Certificate, issued by the
Medical Board, Thiruvannamalai Government Hospital would show that the
appellant had suffered a fracture to her medial condyle of femur extending upto
the intercondylar eminence, for which, an implant has been carried out. The
injury would definitely constrict free functioning of the appellant in her work
as an agricultural coolie. In fact, the injury would also restrict her movements
even in her household work. The appellant has adduced oral evidence to this
effect, which has not been rebutted by the second respondent-insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3540 of 2019
Company. Therefore, it has to be held that the appellant has sustained
permanent or partial disablement, which is a functional disability and therefore,
the compensation under the head of functional disability ought to have been on
a multiplier basis. Since the accident is of the year 2016, a sum of Rs.10,000/-
can be taken as the notional income of the deceased. The appellant is aged
about 45 years at the time of the accident and therefore, the appropriate
multiplier is 14. The compensation is therefore under the head of functional
disability would be Rs.10,000 x 12 x 14 x 40% = 6,72,000/-. The
compensation is therefore enhanced by a sum of Rs.5,52,000/-. Now, the
compensation payable is sum of Rs.7,75,700/-.
Heads Amount awarded Amount awarded by this
by Tribunal Court(Rs)
(Rs)
Functional disability 1,20,000.00 6,72,000.00
(10,000 x 12 x 14 x 40%)
Pain and sufferings 40,000.00 40,000.00
Loss of earning during the 30,000.00 30,000.00
treatment period
Medical expenses 30,700.00 30,700.00
Extra nourishment 3,000.00 3,000.00
Total 2,23,700.00 7,75,700.00
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3540 of 2019
9. The appeal is partly allowed and the Award of the Tribunal is
modified, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.2,23,700.00 to
Rs.7,75,700.00. The second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the said amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2017 along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the
date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any
already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted
to withdraw the award amount, along with accrued interest and costs as
awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing
necessary application before the Tribunal. The claimant is directed to pay the
Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal
below shall not disburse the enhanced amount till such time as the certified
copy showing proof of payment of Court fee has been produced by the
claimants. In other respects, the Award of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.
There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.
29.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
srn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3540 of 2019
To
1. The Special Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3540 of 2019
P.T.ASHA.J
srn
C.M.A.No.3540 of 2019
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
