Madras High Court
Margeret Mary vs Ambrose on 31 August, 2023
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.08.2023
:CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
Margeret Mary .. Appellant in C.M.A.No.3367 of 2014
Anthoniammal .. Appellant in C.M.A.No.3368 of 2014
Alphonse Mary .. Appellant in C.M.A.No.3369 of 2014
Savarimuthu .. Appellant in C.M.A.No.3373 of 2014
Vs.
1. Ambrose
2. Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Ltd.
Dare House, 2nd Floor
2/234, N.S.C.Bose Road,
Chennai-600 001. .. Respondents in all the Appeals
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Common Judgment and decree dated
20.08.2014 in M.C.O.P.Nos.1383/2010, 1381/2010, 1384/2010 and
1382/2010 respectively on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
Additional District Court, Krishnagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
For Appellants : Mr. P.Mani
(in all Appeals)
For R1 : Mr.M.Vijayaraghavan
For R2 : Mr.M.B.Raghavan
COMMON JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 20.08.2014 passed in
M.C.O.P.Nos.1383, 1381, 1384 and 1382 of 2010, on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court, Krishnagiri, the
Appellants/Claimants have preferred these Appeals for enhancement of
Compensation.
2. The Claim Petitions were filed by the Appellants/Claimants under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for a
sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-
respectively for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that occurred
on 22.05.2010.
3. The learned Tribunal after hearing both sides and upon
consideration of oral and documentary evidence has passed an Award,
granting a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- ,in M.C.O.P.No.1383 of 2010, a sum of
Rs.3,82,000/-, in M.C.O.P.No.1381 of 2010, a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- in
M.C.O.P.No.1384 of 2010 and a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.1382
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
of 2010 as compensation holding that the 2nd Respondent / Insurance
Company is liable to pay compensation.
4.Seven M.C.O.P's were filed inclusive of the above said O.P.'s before
the Claims Tribunal and after recording common evidence in
M.C.O.P.No.1167 of 2010. a common Award came to be passed. Against
which, four of the Claimants in the above said four M.C.O.P's have preferred
these Appeals.
C.M.A.No.3367 of 2014 (M.C.O.P.No.1383 of 2010)
The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant Mr.P.Mani would
vehemently argue that the Appellant- Margeret Mary who was 33 years old
at the time of accident, was working as a teacher in a private school and
while she along with others were travelling in a Chevrolet Tavera, bearing
Registration No.TN-30-H7196, along Namakkal-Trichy Road proceeding
towards Trichy, nearing Thudaiyur, the driver of the said vehicle drove in a
rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle at the banyan tree, due to
which several persons got injured and one amongst them was the
Appellant. She was admitted as inpatient in Geethanjali Medical Centre,
Trichy on 22.05.2010 and got discharged on 26.05.2010. He would further
submit that the Appellant sustained head injury with scalp avulsion, Fracture
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
neck of scapula left side and whiplash injury with cord contusion and Left
upper limb paralysis. Dr.M.Devendiran, was examined as P.W.8. He issued
disability certificate Ex.P32, assessing disability @ 65%. But the Tribunal
without assigning any reason has taken disability @ 45% which is not
correct. He would further contend that because of the injuries sustained,
she is not in a position to do her work as she did before. It is his argument
that she took treatement at various hospitals in Bangalore, Krishnagiri
Vellore and Trichy. The Doctor, who examined her has also spoken about
the impact of the injuries, which supports her case. He would stress upon
the fact that the Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards Loss of
Income during treatment period and for Loss of Amenities and prayed for
enhancement.
(ii) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
Respondent/Insurance Company would strenuously argue that the Appellant
was given treatment only for five days. Since no document was filed in order
to prove her income, no amount was granted towards Loss of Income and
therefore the Award awarded by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable and
prayed for dismissal.
(iii). It is the evidence of P.W.3- Margeret Mary that on 22.05.2010 at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
3.00 P.M, she along with others travelled in Chevrolet Tavera, bearing
Registration No.TN-30-H7196 and while the vehicle was proceeding along
Namakkal-Trichy Road towards Trichy, near Thudaiyur the driver of the said
vehicle drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle at the
Banyan tree, due to which several persons injured along with the Appellant
is not in dispute. The Appellant sustained head injury with scalp avulsion,
Fracture neck of scapula left side and whiplash injury with cord contusion
and Left upper limb paralysis. She claimed that prior to the accident, she
was working as a private School teacher and was earning a monthly income
of Rs.25,000/- per month.
(iv). As per Ex.P12-discharge summary issued to claimant, it appears
that due to accident that occurred on 22.05.2010, she sustained head injury
with scalp avulsion, Fracture neck of scapula left side, whiplash injury
with cord contusion and Left upper limp paralysis and she underwent
surgery for the scalp Avulsion on the date of accident itself. P.W.9-doctor
assessed disability @ 65%. Therefore, relying upon the evidence of the
Appellant along with evidence of P.W.8 and the treatement records, this
Court deems fit to fix the disability @ 45%. Considering the nature of
injuries sustained and the impact of the same on the Appellant a sum of
Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability is fixed. Hence a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
Rs.1,35,000/- is awarded towards Partial Permanent Disability. The
Appellant claimed that she was working as a private school teacher at the
relevant point of time. For Loss of Amenities a sum of Rs.10,000/- is
granted and for loss of income a sum of Rs.15,000/- is granted.
(v) In respect of other heads, it appears to be reasonable and needs
no interference. Therefore, the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
reworked and tabulated below:
S. Description Amount Amount Award
N awarded by awarded by confirmed or
o Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted or
reduced
1. For Partial 90,000/- 1,35,000/- Enhanced
Permanent
Disability
2. For Medical 85,000/- 85,000/- Confirmed
Expenses (As per
Bills)
3. For Transport 70,000/- 70,000/- Confirmed
Expenses
4. For Extra 20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed
Nourishment
5. For Attender 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
charges
6. For Further 20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed
Treatement
7. For Pain and 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
S. Description Amount Amount Award
N awarded by awarded by confirmed or
o Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted or
reduced
suffering
8. For Loss of NIL 10,000/- Granted
Amenities
9. For Loss of NIL 15,000/- Granted
Income
Total Rs.3,45,000 Rs.4,15,000/-
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.3,45,000/- to Rs.4,15,000/- which would carry interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of numbering of the petition till the date of
realisation.
C.M.A.No.3368 of 2014 (M.C.O.P.No.1381 of 2010)
The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Claimant Mr.P.Mani
would vehemently argue that the Appellant-Ms.Anthoniammal who was 58
years old at the relevant time, had suffered Head injury, Fracture of both
bones in left leg and fracture of left forearm, for which she undergone
surgeries, which is evidenced as per Ex.P16-Discharge summary. He would
further contend that Dr.M.Devendiran who treated the Appellant was
examined as P.W.8. He assessed disability @ 55%. Though she sustained
fracture and the impact of the said fractures are so severe upon her, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per
percentage is very low. He would further contend that she was stated to be
taking tuitions and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month, but no amount
was awarded towards Loss of Income during treatement period.
(ii) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
Respondent/Insurance Company would vehemently argue that as no record
was filed to show that she was taking tution class and therefore no amount
was granted towards Loss of Income during treatment period and therefore
the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. He would further contend that
considering the nature of injuries sustaind by the Appellant, the
compensation granted by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable and prayed
for dismissal.
(iii). The Appellant was examined as P.W.4 and through her Exs.P15
to P18 were marked and through P.W.8-Dr.Devendiran, Exs.P36 and 37
were maked. The medical records of the Appellant are Exs.P15 and P16. It
is the evidence of the Appellant that due to the accident she suffered head
injury, Fracture of left leg and left forearm. She claims that she was
hospitalized for eight days and undergone a surgery in the left forearm and
left tibia and nailing was done and plates were fixed. She further claims that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
she finds it very difficult to attend to her work as she did before. P.W.8-
Dr.Devendiran has asssed her disability @ 55%.
(iv). On a thorough perusal of the discharge summary-Ex.P16, it
appers that she was admitted at Geethanjali Medical Centre, Trichy on the
date of accident i.e., on 22.05.2010 and got discharged on 29.05.2010. She
suffered Head Injury-Hamorrhagic contusion Left temporal Lobe, for which
she was treated conservatively and for Fracture of left forearm and left tibia,
she underwent surgery for both fractures and internal fixation was done in
Ulna Forearm and for the fracture of left tibia, interlocking / nailing of 34x9
size nail passed and locked proximally and distally and for left forearm, four
cortical screws in proximal and three cortical screws in distal fragment was
fixed. Therefore, it would definitely be difficult for such a person to sleep
nomally, to claim upstairs and to lift the weight. Considering the impact of
fractures and surgeries, justice will be met if a sum of Rs.3,000/- per
percentage is awarded. The Doctor has assessed 55% disability and this
Court deems it fit to fix disability @ 50% and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is
granted towards Partial Permanent Disability. For Loss of Amenities and
towards Attender charges, a sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- are
granted in addition to the amounts already granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
(v). In respect of other heads, it 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
Tribunal this Court or
enhanced
or granted
or reduced
1 For Partial 55,000/- 1,50,000/- Enhanced
Permanent
Disability
2 For Medical 1,34,000/- 1,34,000/- Confirmed
Expenses (As per
bills)
3 For Transport 93,000/- 93,000/- Confirmed
Charges
4 For Extra 20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed
Nourishment
5 For Attender 10,000/- 20,000/- Enhanced
charges
6 For Continuous 20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed
Treatment
7 For Pain and 50,000/- 50,000/- confirmed
Sufferings
8 For Loss of - 25,000/- Granted
Amenities
Total Rs.3,82,000/- Rs.5,12,000/-
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.3,82,000/- to Rs.5,12,000/- which would carry interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of numbering of the petition till the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
realisation.
C.M.A.No.3369 of 2014 (M.C.O.P.No.1384 of 2010)
The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Claimant Mr.P.Mani
would streneously contend that Ms.Alphonse Mary, the Appellant/Claimant
herein who was 56 years at the time of accident, suffered multiple injuries
and fracture of right wrist and she has undergone surgery on the right wrist.
He would further contend that though P.W.8-Dr.Devendiran assessed her
disability @ 35%, no amount was granted by the Tribunal towards Loss of
Amenities and also for Loss of Income during treatement period and that
apart no compensation was awarded for Partial Permanent Disability and
therefore he prays for enhancement.
(ii). Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
Respondent/Insurance Company would vehemently argue that the Appellant
has not filed any proof for income and therefore no amount was granted for
Loss of Income during treatement period and disability assessed by the
doctor is on the higher side. It is further argued that the amounts awarded
under various heads appears to be reasonable and same may be confirmed.
(iii). The Appellant was examined as P.W.5. Through her Exs.19 to
P22 were marked. Through P.W.8-Dr.Devendiran, disability certificate and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
the Xray were marked as Exs.34 and 35. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that
because of the accident, she suffered fracture in the right wrist, suffered
head injury besides other injuries. As per Ex.P20- discharge record issued
by Gitanjali Medical Centre, she has undergone surgery and internal fixtion
with locking plate was done. It is her further evidence that she undertook
further treatment at St.John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore and at the
private hospitals and clinics at Krishnagiri. She claims that even after so
many treatments having been taken she finds it very difficult to work with her
right hand as she did before and she finds it very difficult to even to attend to
her day-to-day works.P.W.8-Dr.Devendiran assesed disability at 35% as per
disability certificate Ex.P35. As she has undergone surgery in right wrist,
this Court deems it fit to fix the disability @ 25% and fixing a sum of
Rs.2,000/- per percentage a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards
Partial Permanent Disability. She claims that she was working in the
poultry farm and earing a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month and fixing her
monthly income at Rs.7,000/= per month, a sum of Rs.21,000/- is awarded
towards for Loss of Income during treatment period and for Loss of
Amenities, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is granted.
(iv). In respect of other heads, it appears to be reasonable and needs
no interference. Therefore, the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
reworked as tabulated below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No. awarded by awarded by confirmed
Tribunal this Court or
enhanced
or granted
or reduced
1 For Partial NIL Rs.50,000/- Granted
Permanent
Disability
2 For Medical Rs.67,000/- Rs.67,000/- Confirmed
Expenses (As per
bills)
3 For Transport Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- Confirmed
Charges
4 For Extra Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Confirmed
Nourishment
5 For Attender Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Confirmed
charges
6 For further Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- Confirmed
Treatment
7 For Pain and Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Confirmed
Sufferings
8 For Loss of - Rs.15,000/- Granted
Amenities
9 For Loss of Income - Rs,21,000/- Granted
during treatment
period
Total Rs.1,52,000/- Rs.2,38,000/-
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.1,52,000/- to Rs.2,38,000/- which would carry interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of numbering of the petition till the date of
realisation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
C.M.A.No.3373 of 2014 (M.C.O.P.No.1382 of 2010)
The learned counsel for the Appellant/Claimant Mr.P.Mani would
vehemently contend that because of the accident the Appellant viz.,
Mr.Savarimuthu suffered Multiple Rib Fracture, Facture of L1,L2, L3 and
dislocation of right hip apart from grievous injuries. He would stress upon
the fact that though P.W.8-Dr.Devendiran assessed the disability of the
Appellant @ 65% for the grievous injuries sustained by the Appellant, the
Tribunal has reduced the disability to 45% and granted only a sum of
Rs.45,000/- towards Partial Permanent Disability which is very low and
requested to grant a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. It is his
further argugment that no amount was granted towards Loss of Income as
the Appellant was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month by taking tuition
and that apart, for Loss of Amenities, no amount was granted by the Tribunal
and therefore he prayed for enhancement.
(ii).Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent/Insurance
Company would strenuously argue that though P.W.8-Dr.Devendiran has
assessed disability of the Appellant as 65%; he has not given break-up
details and therefore the disability assessed by the Tribunal @45% is
reasonable. He would further argue that the Appellant was a retired school
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
teacher and hence no amount was granted for Loss of Income during
treatment period; and prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.
(iii). The Appellant-Savarimuthu was examined as P.W.2 and through
him Exs.P7-Wound Certificate and Ex.P8-Discharge Summary were marked
and through P.W.8-Dr.Devendiran, Ex.P30-Discharge summary and Ex.P31-
Xray were marked. It is the evidence of the Appellant that due to the
accident, he suffered mutiple rib fractures on the right side and 1st rib on the
left side and fracture of L1,L2, L3. He would further claim that due to the
said fracture he is not in a position even to attend the day-to-day works.
Initially the Appellant took treatement in Githanjali Medical Centre, Trichy
and underwent surgery and thereafter took treatment at C.M.C. Hospital,
Vellore, Hospital and Clinic at Krishnagiri,
(iv).From the evidence of P.W.2-Mr.Savarimuthu, P.W.8-
Dr.Devendiran, along with other medical records, it is discernable that the
Appellant sustained many multiple rib fracture right side and 1st rib on the
left side, Bilateral pleural effusion and fracture of L1,L2,L3, dislocation of
right hip and fracture in right wrist. On the thorough perusal of Discharge
Summary-Ex.P8, it appears that he also had sustained many injuries over
face, chest etc. He underwent surgery for the fracture of elbow on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
01.06.2010. In view of the fact that the Appellant sustained fractures and
injuries, one can easily understand that he might have so many difficulties
even to do his normal work at least for a few months. Considering the
evidence of the Appellant, Doctor and the treatment records, this Court
deems it fit to fix his disability @ 50% and fixing a sum of Rs.3,000/- for per
percentage of disability, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded towards Partial
Permanent Disability. He claims to be retired school teacher at the
relevant point of time and was 63 years old and therefore a sum of
Rs.40,000/- is granted towards Loss of Amenities and a sum of
Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards Attender charges in addition to the amount
already granted.
(v). In respect of other heads, it appears to be reasonable and needs
no interference. Therefore, the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
reworked as tabulated below:
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No. awarded by awarded by confirmed
Tribunal this Court or
enhanced
or granted
or reduced
1 For Partial Rs.45,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- Enhanced
Permanent
Disability
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No. awarded by awarded by confirmed
Tribunal this Court or
enhanced
or granted
or reduced
For Medical Rs.1,21,800/- Rs.1,21,800/- Confirmed
2 Expenses (As per
bills)
3 For Transport Rs.28,200/- Rs.28,200/- Confirmed
Charges
4 For Extra Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- Confirmed
Nourishment
5 For Attender Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Enhanced
charges
6 For further Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Confirmed
Treatment
7 For Pain and Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Confirmed
Sufferings
8 For Loss of - Rs.40,000/- Granted
Amenities
Total Rs.2,90,000/- Rs.4,45,000/-
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.2,90,000/- to Rs.4,45,000/- which would carry interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of numbering of the petition till the date of
realisation.
5. In the result, all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly
allowed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
(i) As far as C.M.A.No.3367 of 2014 is concerned, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,45,000/- to Rs.4,15,000/-/-
(ii) As far as C.M.A.No.3368 of 2014 is concerned, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,82,000/- to Rs.5,12,000/- .
(iii) As far as C.M.A.No.3369 of 2014 is concerned, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,52,000/- to Rs.2,38,000/-
(iv) As far as C.M.A.No.3373 of 2014 is concerned, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,90,000/- to Rs.4,45,000/-.
(v) The 2nd respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
above enhanced compensation amount (less the amount already deposited
if any) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.Nos.1383, 1381,
1384 and 1382 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
(iv) On such deposit being made, the Appellants / claimants are at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
liberty to withdraw the same on filing of cheque petition. The claimants are
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.
31.08.2023
arr
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Court, Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 and 3373 of 2014
R.KALAIMATHI, J.
arr
C.M.A.Nos.3367 to 3369 of 2014 and 3373 of 2014
31.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
