Madras High Court
Minor Anni Joy Beatrice vs Benny Anburaj on 13 October, 2022
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2224 of 2021
C.M.A.No.1719 of 2020
Minor Anni Joy Beatrice
Rep. by her father, natural guardian & next friend,
Ingarsal Rajanayagam .. Appellants
Vs.
1.Benny Anburaj
2.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager,
No.13, Mudhaliyar Street, Mailaduthurai.
3.S.Muthu
4.The Managing Director, TNSTC – Kumbakonam Ltd.,
Railway Station New Road, Kumbakonam,
Branch Office – Pulliyan Kottai Salai,
Karaikal. .. Respondents
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2020, made
in M.C.O.P. No.188 of 2019, on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal) Karaikal.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
For RR1 & 2 : No appearance
For R4 : Mr.D.Raghu
C.M.A.No.324 of 2021
The Managing Director,
TNSTC – Kumbakonam Ltd.,
Railway Station New Road, Kumbakonam,
Branch Office – Pulliyan Kottai Salai,
Karaikal. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Godfrey Danielraj
2.Minor Eunice Anburani
(rep. by her elder brother as natural guardian
& next friend, Godfrey Danielraj)
3.Benny Anburaj
4.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. By its Manager,
No.13, Mudhaliyar Street,
Mailaduthurai
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
5.S.Muthu .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2020, made
in M.C.O.P. No.229 of 2018, on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal) Karaikal.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Raghu
For RR1 & 2 : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
For RR3 to 5 : No appearance
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.]
C.M.A.No.1719 of 2020 has been filed by the appellant-claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award
dated 18.05.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.188 of 2019, on the file of the
District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Karaikal.
C.M.A.No.324 of 2021 has been filed by the appellant-Transport
Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2020, made in
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
M.C.O.P. No.229 of 2018, on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal) Karaikal.
2.Both the appeals arise out of same accident and common award and
hence, disposed of by this common judgment.
3.The parties are referred to as per their ranks in their respective claim
petitions, for the sake of convenience.
4.The claimant in C.M.A.No.1719 of 2020 filed M.C.O.P. No.188 of
2019 on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal)
Karaikal, claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries
sustained by her in the accident that took place on 18.08.2018. The claimants
in C.M.A.No.324 of 2021 filed M.C.O.P. No.229 of 2018, on the file of the
District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Karaikal, claiming a sum of
Rs.1,10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Arul Jothi Bagyarani
who died in the same accident.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
5.According to the claimant/claimants in both the claim petitions, on
the date of accident, when the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019 was
travelling along with the deceased Aruljothi Bagyarani, her daughter minor
Eunice Anburani/2nd claimant in M.C.O.P.No.229 of 2018, one minor Jerome,
minor Aneejo Patrics and minor Judith in a Tata Indica Car bearing
Registration No.TN-51-K-3291, driven by the 1st respondent in both the claim
petitions from South to North direction on the western side of Karaikal-
Nagore Main road, while nearing in front of Neravy ONGC Office Main Gate,
due to sudden crossing of a cyclist, the 1st respondent/driver of the Car turned
his Car towards right side i.e., eastern side to avoid hitting the cyclist. At that
time, the 3rd respondent/driver of the TNSTC Bus bearing Registration
No.TN-68-N-0510 which was coming on the same road from opposite
direction, dashed on the Car and caused the accident. In the accident, the said
Aruljothi Bagyarani died on the way to Hospital and minor Anni Joy
Beatrice/claimant in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019 and other occupants of the Car
including the 1st respondent sustained grievous injuries. The accident occurred
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicle drivers and hence, the
claimant in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019 filed the said claim petition claiming
compensation for the injuries sustained by her and claimants in
M.C.O.P.No.229 of 2018 filed the said claim petition claiming compensation
for the death of one Aruljothi Bagyarani who died in the accident, against the
respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner-cum-driver and insurer of the said
Tata Indica Car and respondents 3 and 4 who are the driver and owner of the
TNSTC Bus respectively.
6.The 1st respondent who appeared in person did not file any counter.
7.The 2nd respondent, insurer of the Tata Indica Car filed counter
statement and denied all the averments made by the claimant/claimants in
both the claim petitions. According to the 2nd respondent, the accident
occurred when the 1st respondent who drove the Tata Indica Car from
Aranthangi to Karaikal, while nearing ONGC Office Main Gate at Nagore
Main Road from South to North, admittedly went to the eastern side of the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
road where number of vehicles will be coming from North to South towards
Nagapattinam in hectic speed and hit against the passenger Bus driven by the
3rd respondent. The same is evident from the FIR and the claim petition. There
was no cyclist crossed the Car at the time of accident. The Traffic Police, T.R.
Pattinama, Karaikal, on seeing the place of occurrence, found that the
accident was caused by the 1st respondent against the moving Bus. Hence, for
the negligence of the 1st respondent and limited liability of insurance coverage
of the Tata Indica Car, the 2nd respondent is not entitled to indemnify the 1st
respondent. As per the policy taken by the 1 st respondent, Section 11-1(ii) of
the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules will be applicable to this case when the Car
was hit against any hard object and not definitely against the moving
passenger Bus. The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.229 of 2018 have to prove the
age, avocation and income of their deceased mother to claim compensation.
Similarly, the claim of Rs.25,00,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019 for the
injuries sustained by the minor claimant is highly exaggerated. The claimant
has to prove the disability suffered. As the medical expenses were sufficiently
paid by the Star Health to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019, further
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
claim made by the claimant is not sustainable. In any event, the total
compensation claimed in both the claim petitions are excessive and prayed for
dismissal of both the claim petitions.
8.The 3rd respondent/driver of the TNSTC Bus filed counter statement
and denied all the averments made by the claimant/claimants in both the claim
petitions. According to the 3rd respondent, on the date of accident, when he
was driving the Bus to Kumbakonam via Natchiar Kovil, slowly at Neravy
Salai, opposite to ONGC main gate, a cyclist suddenly crossed the road and
hence, the 3rd respondent stopped the Bus. But the 1st respondent/driver of the
Tata Indica Car who was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner
from opposite direction in an uncontrollable speed, to avoid hitting the cyclist,
hit on the left side bottom of the Bus grill and mudguard and caused the
accident. Due to the carelessness of the 1st respondent, who himself drove the
Car in an uncontrollable speed and hit the Bus, the accident has occurred.
There was no rash and negligent driving by the 3rd respondent/driver of the
Bus. The Nagapattinam road is a broad road and the 1 st respondent who could
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
not see the cyclist, invited the alleged accident himself. Therefore, the 3rd
respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent and pay compensation
to the claimant/claimants in both the claim petitions. The claimants in
M.C.O.P.No.229 of 2018 failed to file the birth certificate of the deceased
Aruljothi Bagyarani to prove her age. In the pay certificate, the salary of the
said deceased is clearly stated, but in the service certificate, the salary of the
deceased is different. Therefore, there is controversy in the salary of the
deceased. The amounts claimed in both the claim petitions are excessive and
prayed for dismissal of both the claim petitions.
9.The 4th respondent-TNSTC filed counter affidavit and denied all the
averments made by the claimant/claimants in both the claim petitions. The 4th
respondent reiterated the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd
respondent as regards the manner of accident and contradiction in the salary
certificate of the deceased Aruljothi Bagyarani. The 4th respondent further
stated that due to the negligent driving of Tata Indica Car by the 1 st
respondent, the occupants of the Car sustained injuries and deceased Aruljothi
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
Bagyarani died on the way to Hospital due to the head injury. The injured
minor claimant in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019 though sustained grievous
injuries, voluntarily discharged herself from the Government Hospital and
admitted in the Meenakshi Hospital, Thanjavur. The Government Hospital,
Karaikal is well equipped with very good accommodation, rich food and high
quality treatment is given on free of cost. She has not produced the accident
register and details of treatment taken at the different hospitals with proper
medical bills. The minor claimant was cured within short period and after due
recovery, she became alright. She failed to prove her temporary/permanent
disability and disfigurement if any, by medical evidence. In any event, the
total compensation claimed in both the claim petitions are excessive and
prayed for dismissal of both the claim petitions.
10.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
both the 1st respondent, driver-cum-owner of the Tata Indica Car and 3 rd
respondent, driver of the TNSTC Bus, fixed 50:50 negligence on both of
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
them, awarded a sum of Rs.5,09,683/- and Rs.89,42,108/- as compensation in
both the claim petitions respectively and directed the respondents 2 and 4 to
pay the compensation equally to the claimant/claimants.
11.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in
M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019, the claimant has filed C.M.A.No.1719 of 2020,
seeking enhancement of compensation.
12.Against the award of the Tribunal dated 18.05.2020, made in
M.C.O.P. No.229 of 2018, the 4th respondent-TNSTC has come out with
C.M.A.No.324 of 2021.
13.The learned counsel appearing for the claimant in C.M.A.No.1719
of 2020 submitted that in the accident, the minor claimant sustained grievous
injuries, lost one lower limb and sustained permanent disablement. The
Tribunal considering the same, out to have awarded compensation towards
loss of income by fixing the notional monthly income and granting future
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
prospects. Considering the year of accident and permanent disability suffered
by the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation
towards disability instead of awarding only Rs.1,86,000/-. The amounts
awarded by the Tribunal towards attendant charges, transportation, extra
nourishment, pain and sufferings, future medical expenses and future marital
prospects are meagre. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
meagre and prayed for enhancement of the same.
14.In C.M.A.No.324 of 2021, though the 4 th respondent-Transport
Corporation raised various grounds with regard to negligence fixed as well as
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.229 of
2018, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th
respondent restricted his arguments only with regard to negligence. The
learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-TNSTC contended that on
the date of accident, the deceased Aruljothi Bagyarani was traveling as an
occupant in the Car driven by the 1st respondent. When the Bus owned by the
4th respondent was driven by the 3rd respondent near Neravy Salai Opposite to
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
ONGC main gate in a slow manner, the driver of the Bus stopped the Bus
since a Cyclist suddenly crossed the road. At that time, the 1st
respondent/driver of the Car who was driving the Car in a rash and negligent
manner, came from opposite direction in an uncontrollable speed, hit the Bus
and caused the accident. In the accident, the deceased Aruljothi Bagyarani
who was the occupant of the Car sustained fatal injuries. The Tribunal failed
to note that the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving by the 1 st
respondent/driver of the Car. FIR is lodged against the 1 st respondent/driver
of the Car. The Tribunal erroneously fixed 50% liability on the part of the 4th
respondent-TNSTC, despite there is no negligence on the part of the 3 rd
respondent/driver of the TNSTC Bus. Further, as regards the quantum of
compensation granted by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019, the
claimant has not made out any case for enhancement of the compensation and
hence, prayed for dismissal of C.M.A.No.1719 of 2020, filed by the claimant
seeking enhancement.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
15.Though notice has been served on the respondents 1 and 2 in
C.M.A.No.1719 of 2020 and respondents 3 to 5 in C.M.A.No.324 of 2021
and their names are printed in the cause list, there is no representation for
them either in person or through counsel.
16.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant/claimants in
both the appeals as well as the 4 th respondent-TNSTC and perused the
materials available on record.
17.It is the case of the claimants/claimant in both the appeals that on
the date of accident the deceased Aruljothi Bagyarani, her daughter who is the
2nd claimant in M.C.O.P.No.229 of 2018 and injured claimant in
M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019 were traveling in a Car along with relative children
from Aranthangi to Porayur. The said Car was driven by the 1st respondent,
who is the husband of the deceased Aruljothi Bagyarani from South to North
direction on the western side of the Karaikal – Nagore main road. While
nearing Neravy ONGC Office main gate, due to sudden crossing of a cyclist,
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
the 1st respondent turned his Car towards right side i.e., Eastern side to avoid
hitting the cyclist. At that time, the TNSTC Bus which was driven by the 3 rd
respondent on the same road from opposite direction, dashed on the Car and
caused the accident. The accident occurred due to the negligence of both the
vehicle drivers. In support of their contention, they examined the 1st claimant
in M.C.O.P.No.229 of 2018 as P.W.1, who deposed to that effect. On the other
hand, it is the case of the 4th respondent-TNSTC and 3rd respondent-driver of
the TNSTC Bus that the accident occurred when the 3rd respondent was
driving the Bus to Kumbakonam via Natchiar Kovil, slowly at Neravy Salai,
opposite to ONGC main gate, a cyclist suddenly crossed the road and hence,
the 3rd respondent stopped the Bus. But the 1st respondent/driver of the Car
who was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner from opposite
direction in an uncontrollable speed, to avoid hitting the cyclist, hit on the left
side bottom of the Bus grill and mudguard and caused the accident. Due to
the carelessness of the 1st respondent, who himself drove the Car in an
uncontrollable speed and hit the Bus, the accident has occurred. The
Nagapattinam road is a broad road and the 1st respondent who could not see
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
the cyclist, invited the alleged accident himself.
18.From the materials on record, it is seen that Ex.P1 – FIR was lodged
by one Adisayam Arumairaj/first informant, one of the occupant of the Car
and brother of the deceased Aruljothi Bagyarani. On perusal of Ex.P1 – FIR
which was registered against the 1st respondent/driver of the Car, it is seen
that after attending relative marriage, the first informant was returning in
three Cars from Aranthangi to Karaikal. The Cars were proceeding one by one
to Karaikal and around 9.50 hours, when they reached Neravy ONGC first
road, the 1st respondent drove the Car in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the TNSTC Bus which was coming in opposite direction. The
Tribunal considered the version of the first informant in FIR and the fact that
the claimants/claimant in both the claim petitions did not deny the said
contention, but only claimed that a cyclist intervened in the road and
therefore, in order to avoid hitting the cyclist, the 1 st respondent turned to his
right side which ultimately hit against the Bus. The Tribunal also took note of
Ex.R2- rough sketch filed by the respondents which shows that the Car has
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
gone to the extreme right side and dashed against the Bus and caused the
accident and held that had there not been any intervention, the Car would not
have gone to the extreme right suddenly and also, had the 3 rd
respondent/driver of the Bus driven the vehicle carefully, he could have
averted the accident by applying sudden brake. On perusal of Ex.R2 – rough
sketch, it is seen that no tyre marks are found to prove that sudden brake was
applied. The Tribunal having considered all these facts, erroneously held that
both the vehicles contributed to the accident and fixed 50% negligence on
both of them. From the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.P1 – FIR and Ex.R2 – rough
sketch, it is seen that the accident occurred mostly due to the negligence on
the 1st respondent/driver of the Car. Hence, it will be just and proper to fix
70% negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver of the Car and 30%
negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent/driver of the TNSTC Bus.
Consequently, the respondents 2 and 4 who are the insurer of the Car and
owner of the Bus respectively are directed to pay 70% and 30% of the
compensation to the claimant/claimants in both the appeals.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
19.As far as the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in
M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019 (C.M.A.No.1719 of 2020) is concerned, at the time
of accident, the injured claimant was a student studying IX Standard at
Sharmila Goddess S.M. Matric Hr. Secondary School, Porayur, Tranqubar
Taluk. In the accident, she suffered head injury diffused axial injury fracture
at right ulnar, fracture at right forearm mandle, both bone fracture and has
taken treatment as in-patient at Meenakshi Hospital, Thanjavur. The Medical
Board at Government General Hospital, Karaikal assessed and certified that the
claimant suffered 62% disability. The Tribunal did not grant any compensation
for loss of earning power on the ground that the appellant was a Student and
non-earning member. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,86,000/- for
62% permanent disability suffered by the claimant at the rate of Rs.3,000/-
per percentage and awarded a total sum of Rs.5,09,683/- as compensation.
The amounts awarded by the Tribunal for granting compensation to the
injured minor is not in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 338 (SC), [Master Mallikarjun Vs.
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., & another], wherein it
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that for the injury sustained by the
minor injured claimant who is a non-earning member, consolidated
compensation must be awarded. The Hon'ble Apex Court also indicated the
amounts to be awarded based on the percentage of disability sustained by the
injured claimant. For 60-90% disability, the amounts to be awarded is
Rs.5,00,000/-. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said judgment is extracted as
follows:
“12. Though it is difficult to have an
accurate assessment of the compensation in the
case of children suffering disability on account of
a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the
relevant factors, precedents and the approach of
various High Courts, we are of the view that the
appropriate compensation on all other heads in
addition to the actual expenditure for treatment,
attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is
above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3
lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5
lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For
permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1
lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances
to take different yardstick.
13.In the instant case, the disability is to
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
the tune of 18%. Appellant had a longer period of
hospitalization for about two months causing also
inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents.
The appellant, hence, would be entitled to get the
compensation as follows: -
HEAD COMPENSATION
AMOUNT
Pain and suffering already Rs.3,00,000/-
undergone and to be
suffered in future, mental
and physical shock,
hardship, inconvenience, and
discomforts, etc., and loss of
amenities in life on account
of permanent disability.
Discomfort, inconvenience Rs.25,000/-
and loss of earnings to the
parents during the period of
hospitalization.
Medical and incidental Rs.25,000/-
expenses during the period
of hospitalization for 58
days.
Future medical expenses for Rs.25,000/-
correction of the mal union
of fracture and incidental
expenses for such
treatment.
TOTAL Rs.3,75,000/-
20.In the present case, the claimant suffered 62% permanent disability.
Applying the said ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the claimant is entitled to a
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards disability, including pain and suffering and loss
of amenities, as the claimant suffered 62% disability. Hence, the sum of
Rs.50,000/- separately granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is
set aside. The claimant has marked Exs.P24 to P27 – medical bills to prove
the medical expenses incurred by her. The Tribunal, on perusal of the same,
found that the Star Health Insurance Company has reimbursed a sum of
Rs.1,66,225/- towards the medical bills issued by the Meenakshi Hospital and
granted a sum of Rs.98,933/- towards medical expenses. The same is just and
proper and hence, confirmed. The claimant has taken in-patient treatment at
Hospital from 19.08.2018 to 27.08.2018 and on 20.08.2018, she underwent
ORIF cude plating at right ulnar fracture. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.1,350/- towards attendant charges at the rate of Rs.150/- per day for 9
days in-patient treatment undergone by the minor claimant. The accident is of
the year 2018. Considering the period of treatment taken and the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 338 (SC) (referred to
above), the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards attendant charges and
future medical expenses are meagre. Hence, the amount awarded by the
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
Tribunal towards attendant charges is modified and a sum of Rs.25,000/- is
granted towards discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents
during the period of hospitalization and the amount awarded towards future
medical expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Considering the age of the
claimant and date of accident, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under
other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby
confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as
follows:
S. No Description Amount awarded Amount Award
by Tribunal awarded by confirmed or
(Rs) this Court (Rs) enhanced or
granted
1. Permanent disability, 1,86,000/- 5,00,000/- Enhanced
pain and sufferings and
loss of amenities
2. Medical expenses 98,933/- 98,933/- Confirmed
3. Pain and suffering 50,000/- - Set aside
4. Transportation 23,400/- 23,400/- Confirmed
5. Discomfort, 1,350/- 25,000/- Enhanced
inconvenience and loss
of earnings to the
parents during the
period of hospitalization
6. Extra nourishment 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
7. Future medical expenses 15,000/- 25,000/- Enhanced
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
8. Loss of marital 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed
prospects
9. Loss of convenience 25,000/- 25,000/- Confirmed
10. Loss of advantage 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed
Total 5,09,683/- 8,07,333/- Enhanced by
Rs.2,97,650/-
21.In the result,
(i).C.M.A.No.324 of 2021 is partly allowed and the amount awarded
by the Tribunal at Rs.89,42,108/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is confirmed. The 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.62,59,476/-
being 70% of the award amount, now determined by this Court, along with
interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.229 of 2018 and the 4th
respondent-TNSTC is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.26,82,632/-, being 30%
of the award amount, now determined by this Court, along with interest and
costs, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, to the credit of the said M.C.O.P. No.229 of 2018. On such
deposit, the 1st claimant is permitted to withdraw his share of the award
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
amount, along with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of
apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any,
already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The
share of the minor 2nd claimant is directed to be deposited in any one of the
Nationalized Bank, till the minor attains majority. The 1st claimant, elder
brother of the minor 2nd claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued
interest, once in three months for the welfare of the minor 2nd claimant.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
(ii).C.M.A.No.1719 of 2020 is partly allowed. The amounts awarded by
the Tribunal at Rs.5,09,683/- is enhanced to Rs.8,07,333/- together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum
of Rs.5,65,133/-, being 70% of the award amount, now determined by this
Court, along with interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.188 of
2019 and the 4th respondent-TNSTC is directed to deposit a sum of
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
Rs.2,42,200/-, being 30% of the award amount, now determined by this
Court, along with interest and costs, within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of the said M.C.O.P.
No.188 of 2019. On such deposit, the claimant being minor, the award
amount is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, till
the minor attains majority. Mr.Ingarsal Rajanayagam, father and next friend
of the minor claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in
three months for the welfare of the minor claimant. No costs.
(V.M.V., J) (S.M., J)
13.10.2022
gsa
To
1.The District Judge,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Karaikal.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section, High Court, Madras.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
(gsa)
C.M.A.Nos.1719 of 2020 & 324 of 2021
13.10.2022
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
