Madras High Court
Chinthamani vs Bhavidiran on 8 August, 2023
C.M.A.No.451 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.451 of 2022
Chinthamani ... Appellant
Versus
1.Bhavidiran
2.Karthikeyan
3.The National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Sendarapatty, Business Centre, 1st Floor,
126/5, Car Street, Gangavalli Taluk,
Salem – 636 110 ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated
29.11.2021 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.1319 of 2019, by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court No.I, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran
For R1 & R2 : No Appearance
For R3 : Mr.S.Arunkumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A.No.451 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant challenging
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.1319 of
2019 dated 29.11.2021.
2.The claim petition was filed stating that on 08.01.2019 at about
12.45 p.m., when the appellant was proceeding to her home by walking,
near Seelanayakanpatti to Kondalampatti Road, the rider of the two
wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 54 K 3553 (Yamaha R15) came in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant, due to
which, the appellant sustained grievous injuries, admitted in the hospital
for a period of two weeks and underwent surgery and hence, she was
entitled for compensation.
3.The 2nd respondent a filed counter denying all the averments
made in the claim petition and stated that he sold the two wheeler bearing
Registration No.TN 54 K 3553 to the 1st respondent on 03.12.2018 and
therefore, he is not in any way connected with the vehicle involved in the
accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.451 of 2022
4.The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter denying all
the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the 1 st
respondent is the owner cum driver of the vehicle involved in the
accident; that the 2nd respondent is not the owner of the vehicle, that the
1st respondent drove the vehicle without driving license and hence, the
3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Thus, they prayed
for dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant examined herself as
P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. The 2nd respondent had examined
himself as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R1 to R4. The 3rd respondent/Insurance
Company examined R.W.2-RTO, Salem and marked Ex.W1 and Ex.W2.
The Disability certificate and X-ray report were marked as Ex.C1 and C2
respectively.
6.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving by the 1st respondent and directed the 3rd respondent/Insurance
Company to pay the compensation of Rs.4,25,654/- to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.451 of 2022
appellant/claimant and ordered to recover the same from the 1st
respondent/owner cum rider of the vehicle since the 1st respondent did
not possess driving license.
7.Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal, the
appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal challenging the quantum
of compensation.
8.Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre. The Tribunal had fixed
a sum of as Rs.7,500/- as notional income of the appellant for the
accident that took place in the year 2019; that the appellant was working
as agricultural coolie and she was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month; and that since the appellant suffered fracture in the leg, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads
were also meagre and prayed for enhancement of compensation.
9.Though notice sent to the respondents 1 and 2 were served, none
entered appearance on behalf of them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.451 of 2022
10.Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company per
contra submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
excessive; that the compensation awarded under certain heads were
unwarranted; that in Ex.C1-disability certificate issued by the Medical
Board, the appellant's disability was assessed at 25%; that in the absence
of any evidence to show that the appellant suffered functional disability,
the Tribunal had rightly applied percentage method and there is no
reason to interfere with the said award.
11.The only question involved in the instant appeal is whether the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable.
12.Ex.C1-disability certificate issued by the Medical Board reveals
that the appellant had suffered “RTA Clavicle fracture, left distal radius
both bone fracture rt leg”. The Medical Board also found that at the time
of examination, the appellant had difficulties in walking and climbing
stairs and assessed the disability as 25% permanent disability. There is
no evidence let in on the side of the appellant to show that on account of
the said injury, she had suffered functional disability and consequently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.451 of 2022
loss of income. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal was
right in adopting percentage method in awarding compensation on the
basis of the disability certificate. The Tribunal had awarded
compensation in the following manner under other conventional heads:
S. No Description Amount awarded by
the Lower Court
(Rs)
1. Pain and Suffering 35,000
2. Loss of Income 37,500
3. Medical Expenses 1,52,154
4. Transportation 15,000
5. Extra Nourishment 15,000
6. Attender Charges 15,000
7. Damages to clothes 1,000
8. Loss of Estate 30,000
9. Permanent Disability 1,25,000
13.This Court is of the view that even assuming that the Tribunal
had awarded a meagre sum of Rs.37,500/- under the head loss of income
during the treatment period, the compensation awarded under other heads
are excessive. Hence, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and reasonable and there is no reason to interfere with the said
findings. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in the present appeal and
the same deserves to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.451 of 2022
14.In view of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed
together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of deposit. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal 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 and thereafter, recover the same from the 1st respondent/owner
cum rider of the tow wheeler. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is
permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest and costs,
less the amount already withdrawn, if any. No costs.
08.08.2023
rst
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.451 of 2022
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
rst
To:
1.The Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Court No.I, Salem.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
C.M.A. No. 451 of 2022
08.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
