Madras High Court
G.Karthick vs Bishnu Prasad Agarwal on 22 December, 2023
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.2249 of 2019
G.Karthick .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Bishnu Prasad Agarwal
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Reliance House, TP Cell
Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment, dated 29.02.2016 in
MACT.OP.No.499 of 2014 on the file of the II Judge, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, (Small Causes Court) Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Munusamy
For Respondents : Mr. E.Rajadurai
For M/s.B.Gopalan Associates
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed seeking enhancement
of compensation in the decree and judgment, dated 29.02.2016 in
MACT.OP.No.499 of 2014 on the file of the II Judge, Motor Accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Claims Tribunal, (Small Causes Court) Chennai.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 27.11.2013 at about 18.40
hours when the appellant was riding on the motor cycle bearing Registration
No.TN................................ Hence, the appellant herein, has filed a Claim
Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosur against the
owner and insurer of the lorry, claiming Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation
under various heads. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the claimant as
compensation.
3. For enhancement of compensation, the appellant-claimant has filed
the present appeal challenging the order dated 04.03.2011 in
M.C.O.P.No.162 of 2006.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that due
to the accident the appellant's right leg patella bone was fractured and he
sustained injuries in his boody. Immediately, he was taken to the Srinivasa
Ortho Hospital, Hosur. Due to the accident, he has suffered permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disability, for which, he could not able to do his work properly. The Tribunal
has failed to award any compensation under pain and sufferings,
transportation, extra nourishment and damages to clothes and articles and
awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the claimant, which
is very low. Hence, the appellant prayed to enhance the compensation,
awarded by the Tribunal.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent-Insurance Company contended that the first respondent had no
valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The respondent denied the age,
income and occupation of the appellant. The appellant has not produced
period and manner of the treatment and also he has not filed any
documentary evidence regarding his injuries, treatment and expenses in
support of the claim. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the entire
allegation of the appellant is not true. To get a large amount of
compensation, he has filed this case. However, the Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.10,000/- on higher side and hence, he prayed for dismissing the
appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the second
respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
7. The appellant is the claimant and the second respondent is the
Insurance Company. The case of the appellant is that on 12.07.2010 at
about 8.00 P.M., the appellant was traveling in the bus bearing Registration
No.TN 33 AA 1919 as a passenger from Kavindapadi to Erode. The bus was
driven by the driver viz., first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner
and suddenly, the bus was capsized at Chettipalayam Bridge. Due to the
accident, the appellant's right clavicle bone was fractured and she sustained
injury all over her body.
8.From the materials on record, it is seen that the appellant in the FIR
as well as in the claim petition has stated that the appellant was returning to
his home after finishing his work, the driver of the mini door auto dashed
against the claimant, for which, he sustained injuries due to the accident and
sustained injuries. In the claim petition, the appellant has stated that he took
treated and admitted in the private hospital as in-patient. But the appellant
has not produced any documents relating to treatment taken by him. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tribunal, considering these fact, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the
claimant. The Tribunal has given valid and cogent reason for awarding the
said claim as compensation. In view of the same, there is no reason to
interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.
9.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
09.11.2023
rli
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
rli
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
Rli
To
The Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum
Subordinate Judge, Hosur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
09.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
