Madras High Court
K.Thangam vs Manimandhiri on 21 April, 2023
C.M.A.No.946 of 2023
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE N.MALA
C.M.A.No.946 of 2023
K.Thangam ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Manimandhiri
2.The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Branch office : Kuamar Complex, 1st Floor,
146, West Car Street, Tiruchengode Post & Taluk,
Namakkal District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.542 of
2012 dated 14.07.2020, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Subordinate Judge Court, Sankari.
For Appellant : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran
For Respondents : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan for R2
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.946 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and
decree dated 14.07.2020 made in MCOP.No.542 of 2012 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Sankari.
2. The claimant has filed the Original Petition claiming a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
motor accident which occurred on 04.06.2012. The appeal is filed by the
claimant for enhancement of compensation.
3. According to the claimant, on 04.06.2012, when he was
travelling as a pillion rider in the Hero Honda Splendor, the motor cycle
belonging to the 1st respondent and driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner hit the claimant's motor cycle thus causing multiple
injuries like fracture in mid shaft of Ulna Radius and other multiple injuries.
4. According to the claimant, he was as an Agriculturist and
Partner of Vinayaka Finance, Salem and was earning an income of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.946 of 2023
Rs.20,000/-. The claimant therefore filed the claim petition seeking a
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
5. The 1st respondent, owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle
remained ex parte and the claim petition was contested by the 2nd
respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle. The 2 nd respondent filed a
counter denying negligence, liability and quantum.
6. Before the Claims Tribunal the claimant examined himself and
marked Exs.P1 to P22 in support of the claim. The respondent examined
one witness and marked one document. Exs.C1 and C2 were filed as Court
documents.
7. The Tribunal on assessment of the entire evidence on record
allowed the claim petition by awarding a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- along with
7.5% interest as compensation. Not satisfied with the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the above appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.946 of 2023
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
disability assessed by the Tribunal at 15% is very meagre and the Tribunal
failed to award any amount towards loss of income, loss of amenities and
attender charges. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the award of
the Tribunal deserved to be modified.
9. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand
submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is fair, just and
reasonable on the facts of the case and therefore it did not call for any
interference by this Court.
10. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the disability assessed by the Medical Board
under Ex.C1 was very meagre. In my view, the assessment of disability by
the Medical Board, which is an expert cannot be interfered with, more so,
when it is accepted by the claims Tribunal. Even otherwise, in my view, the
assessment of disability at 15% permanent disability is in consonance with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.946 of 2023
nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and therefore the same is not
interfered with.
11. It is seen that though no amounts were awarded towards loss
of income, loss of amenities and attender charges but as the award of the
Tribunal towards transportation charges, extra nourishment, damage to
clothing, future medical expenses and pain and sufferings are very much on
the higher side and therefore there is no justification for claiming any sum
towards the above heads. I am therefore of the view that the award of the
claims Tribunal is fair, just and reasonable and calls for no interference by
this Court.
12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company has not deposited the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal and therefore a direction may be issued to the 2 nd
respondent/ Insurance Company to deposit the amount within a reasonable
period.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.946 of 2023
13. In view of the said submission, a direction is issued to the 2 nd
respondent to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the claims
Tribunal within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of the order along with accrued interest and costs. On such deposit being
made, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the same by making proper
application before the Tribunal.
14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
21.04.2023
dsa
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Speaking order /Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.946 of 2023
To:-
The Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sankari.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.946 of 2023
N.MALA, J.
dsa
C.M.A.No.946 of 2023
21.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
