Madras High Court
S.Jayachandran … vs Managing Director on 29 August, 2023
C.M.A.No.153 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.No.153 of 2012
S.Jayachandran … Appellant /Petitioner
vs.
Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Kancheepuram. … Respondent / Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010
made in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / Kancheepuram (District Court No.II, Kancheepuram).
For Appellant : Mr.N.Veerasamy
For Respondent : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
JUDGMENT
Not being satisfied by the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2010,
dated 23.12.2010, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
Kancheepuram (District Court No.II, Kancheepuram), the claimant herein
has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of
compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.153 of 2012
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the injuries
sustained in a road accident that occurred on 12.05.2001.
3. The learned Tribunal after hearing both sides and upon
consideration of oral and documentary evidence has passed an award for
an amount of Rs.80,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till the date of deposit.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
strenuously contend that due to the accident the appellant has suffered
fracture of right bone arm and fore-arm. PW3-Dr.Mukunth has assessed
the disability of the appellant as 50%. It is his argument that no amount
was granted for pain and sufferings undergone, for transport expenses and
prayed for enhancement.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent/Transport Corporation would argue that considering the oral
and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted compensation of
Rs.80,000/- is a well reasoned order and prayed for dismissal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.153 of 2012
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both sides and
perused the entire materials available on record.
7. At trial, on the petitioner's side PW1 to PW3 have been examined
and Exs.P1 to P14 have been marked. On the side of the respondent,
neither any oral evidence was let in nor any document was marked.
8. It is seen from the medical records namely Exs.P2 and P3, owing
to the accident, the appellant sustained fracture of right shaft of compound
humerus L/3 and fracture of both bones right fore-arm. External fixation
was applied and K wiring was done for both bone fracture. At the relevant
point of time, appellant was aged about 27 years. It is the evidence of
PW3-Dr.Mukunth that he suffers from malunion and there is a non-union of
both bone and eventually appellant would not be in a position to do his
usual work as he did before. He has assessed the disability as 50%. The
Tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/- for the disability suffered (Rs.1000/- per
percentage) and Rs.30,000/- for medical expenses. Time and again the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the view that because of the injuries, the
injured is not in a position to attend his work as he did before and
depending upon his avocation or work in order to grant just compensation
has opined in Mr.R.D.Hattangadi v.M/s.Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.153 of 2012
and others reported in 1995 (1) SCC 551 and in Raj Kumar v. Ajay
Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Court while
granting compensation, may invoke multiplier method. In this case, the
appellant was said to be a 27 years old person who was working as a lorry
driver. Owing to the accident, he sustained fracture of right arm and also
compound fracture of both bones fore-arm. The Doctor has assessed the
disability as 50%. PW1 has also in his evidence, has explained his
difficulties to do the work after the accident. PW3-Dr.Mukunth has
specifically stated that he suffered from malunion in respect of first fracture
and non-union in respect of second fracture. If the bone brakes and comes
out, it is a compound fracture. Relying upon the above said evidences,
certainly appellant may not be in a position to attend to his work as he did
before. As a lorry driver, he has exert some pressure while driving heavy
vehicle. In the facts and circumstances, based on the aforesaid
observations, this Court deems fit to adopt multiplier method. The relevant
multiplier is 17. The appellant was said to be a lorry driver in Indane Gas
Company and earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. Date of accident is
12.05.2001. This Court deems fit to fix the monthly income of the appellant
at Rs.3,000/-. The functional disability of the appellant is taken as 35%. To
ascertain the loss of earning power, the following formula emerges:
Rs.3,000/- X 12 X 17 X 35 / 100
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.153 of 2012
= Rs.2,14,200/-
9. Therefore, based on the aforesaid discussion, an amount of
Rs.15,000/- is granted for pain and sufferings. For Transport Expenses
and for Extra Nourishment an amount of Rs.5,000/- is granted. For loss of
amenities an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted. For Attender Charges
Rs.5,000/- is granted. In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal
appears to be reasonable and needs no interference. Therefore, the
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reworked and tabulated below:
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No. awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
granted or
reduced
1 For Partial Permanent Rs. 50,000/- Rs.2,14,200/- Enhanced
Disability
2 For Medical Expenses Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 30,000/- Confirmed
3 For Pain and NIL Rs. 15,000/- Granted
Sufferings
4 For Transport NIL Rs. 5,000/- Granted
Expenses and Extra
Nourishment
5 For Loss of Amenities NIL Rs. 10,000/- Granted
6 For Attender Charges NIL Rs. 5,000/- Granted
Total Rs.80,000/- Rs.2,79,200/-
10. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.153 of 2012
from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.2,79,200/- which would carry interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum.
11. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
(ii) The Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.80,000/- to Rs.2,79,200/-.
(iii) The Respondent / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit
the enhanced compensation amount i.e., Rs.2,79,200/- (less the amount
already deposited if any) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation to the credit
of M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2010, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
Kancheepuram (District Court No.II, Kancheepuram), within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
(iv) On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is at liberty
to withdraw the same along with interest and costs, less the amount if any
already withdrawn, by making necessary cheque application before the
Tribunal. The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the Court fee for the
enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal below shall
disburse the enhanced amount upon production of the certified copy
showing proof of payment of Court fee by the claimant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.153 of 2012
29.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
ssn
To:
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kancheepuram (District Court No.II, Kancheepuram).
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.153 of 2012
R.KALAIMATHI, J.,
ssn
C.M.A.No.153 of 2012
29.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
