Madras High Court
Ajay vs Chandirakala on 18 August, 2023
C.M.A.No.1954 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.1954 of 2022
Ajay ... Appellant
Versus
1.Chandirakala
2.The Managing Director,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Micro Office, No.170/6, 1st Floor,
M.R.Complex, I.O.B.Building, Nalliyam Road,
Ambai Bhavani Taluk,
Erode District – 638 312. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2021
passed in M.C.O.P.No.9 of 2019, by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sub-Court, Jayankondam.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Parthikannan
For R1 : No Appearance
For R2 : Mr.J.Chandran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
C.M.A.No.1954 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant challenging
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.9 of 2019,
dated 25.10.2021.
2.The claim petition was filed stating that on 19.11.2018 at about
02.00 p.m., the appellant was travelling as pillion rider in his motorcycle
bearing Registration No.TN-61-P-7834 ridden by one Varunsarathy; that
while they were nearing Co-operative Commercial Complex,
Jayankondam to Trichy Main Road, a Ashok Leyland Tanker Lorry
bearing Registration No. TN-52-7160, came in an opposite direction in a
rash and negligent manner and rammed against the appellant's
motorcycle; that due to the said accident, the appellant and the rider of
the motorcycle were thrown away and the appellant sustained crush
injuries in his right hand and fracture in his left leg. Thus, he was entitled
for compensation.
3.The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-
parte before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1954 of 2022
4.The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter denying
all the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the rider of
the motorcycle rode the same in high speed and dashed against the
vehicle insured with them; that hence, the 2nd respondent was not liable
to pay compensation to the appellant; that in any case, the compensation
claimed was excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1
and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23 on his side. The 2nd respondent examined
one witness on their side and marked Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
6.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the lorry and being the insurer of the lorry
belonging to the 1st respondent, directed the 2nd respondent to pay a sum
of Rs.16,82,573/- as compensation to the appellant.
7.Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant
has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1954 of 2022
8.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal
had awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.6,00,000/- under the head future
loss of earning and awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards disability by
adopting percentage method; that considering the fact that right arm of
the appellant was amputated and artificial limb (Myoelectric Arm
Prosthesis) was fixed, the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier
method by assessing the functional disability.
8(a).The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was a
student pursuing Engineering degree and he was in his 3 rd year at the
time of accident; that the appellant on account of amputation in his right
arm has suffered functional disability to an extent of 60% determined by
the Medical Board as could be seen from his deposition before the
Tribunal. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that the compensation
must be awarded by adopting multiplier method. Further, the learned
counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P State
Road Transport Corporation reported in 2023 (1) TN MAC 20 (SC) and
submitted that the Tribunal considering the nature of injuries suffered by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1954 of 2022
the appellant, ought to have awarded compensation under the head loss
of amenities of life and towards disfigurement and hence, the appeal may
be allowed.
9.Though notice was duly served on the 1st respondent and his
name is printed in the cause list, none entered appearance on behalf of
her.
10.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent per contra submitted
that the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable; that the Tribunal
had awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.6,00,000/- under the head loss of
future earning and another sum of Rs.3,00,000 under the head disability
which cannot be faulted and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11.The only question involved in the instant appeal is whether the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
12.The admitted facts are that the appellant was an Engineering
student at the time of accident and Ex.P16 & Ex.P19, the certificates
issued by the college authority were marked to prove that he was a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1954 of 2022
student. The appellant had suffered injury in right upper limb with
mangledarm and forearm, ruptured brachial artery and median nerve, as
could be seen from Ex.P14-certificate issued by the hospital, which
treated the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that the right hand of the
appellant was amputated and artificial limb was fixed which is called
Myoelectric Arm Prosthesis. The Medical Board had assessed disability
at 60% permanent. Considering the fact that right hand of the appellant
was amputated and artificial limb was fixed, and also the fact that the
appellant was an engineering student at the time of accident, this Court is
of the view that the functional disability could be the same as assessed by
the Medical Board (i.e) 60%. Thus, this Court is of the view that the
Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier method to award
compensation. Considering the fact that the appellant was an Engineering
student and the year of the accident, this Court is of the view that it
would be just and reasonable to fix the notional income of the appellant
at Rs.13,000/- per month and the appellant is entitled to 40%
enhancement towards future prospects. Thus the award of compensation
under the head loss of future earnings is computed as follows:
Rs.18200 (Rs.13,000 + 40%) X 12 X 18 X 60/100 =
Rs.23,58,720/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1954 of 2022
13.Since this Court adopted multiplier method to award
compensation under the head loss of future earnings, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of earning at Rs.30,000/-
and disability at Rs.3,00,000/- are set aside. That apart, it is seen that on
account of injuries, the appellant is entitled to compensation towards loss
of marriage prospects at Rs.50,000/- and the same is awarded. It is seen
that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer case (Cited
Supra) awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each under heads loss of
amenities of life and disfigurement. Considering the facts of the present
case, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards disfigurement and a sum
of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. The amounts awarded
by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable and the same is
confirmed. It is well settled that the Tribunal and the Courts have to
award just compensation. Though the claimants have claimed lesser
compensation, the Courts have power to grant just compensation more
than the amount claimed by the claimants. Thus, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1954 of 2022
S. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of Earning 30,000 - Set aside
2. Transportation 30,000 30,000 Confirmed
3. Pain and 2,00,000 2,00,000 Confirmed
Sufferings
4. Extra 20,000 20,000 Confirmed
Nourishment
5. Attender Charges 30,000 30,000 Confirmed
6. Damages of 2,000 2,000 Confirmed
Clothes
7. Medical Expenses 1,33,822 1,33,822 Confirmed
8. Loss of future 6,00,000 25,58,720 Enhanced
earnings
9. Expenses incurred 3,36,751 3,36,751 Confirmed
for fixation of
artificial limb
10. Disability 3,00,000 - Set aside
11. Loss of Marriage - 50,000 Awarded
prospects
12. Disfigurement - 1,00,000 Awarded
13. Loss of amenities - 1,50,000 Awarded
of life
Total 16,82,573 36,11,293 Enhanced by
Rs.19,28,720/-
14.With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1954 of 2022
Rs.16,82,573/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.36,11,293/- together with interest
at 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if any) from the date of
petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along
with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a
period of four (4) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of this
Judgment. On such deposit the appellant/claimant is permitted to
withdraw the entire award amount along with interest and cost, less
amount already withdrawn, if any. The appellants are directed to pay the
necessary Court fee, if any on the enhanced award amount. No costs.
18.08.2023
rst
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To:
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub-Court, Jayankondam.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1954 of 2022
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
rst
C.M.A.No.1954 of 2022
18.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
