Madras High Court
Murali vs Prabakaran on 5 July, 2023
C.M.A.No.392 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATUREAT MADRAS
DATED: 05.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICER . K A L A I M A T H I
C.M . A . N o . 3 9 2 of 201 9
Murali .. Appellant
Vs .
1. Prabakaran
2. R.K.Mohan
3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
represented by its Branch Manager,
Branch Office,
No.2, Church Street,
Karaikal. .. Respondents
P r a y e r : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award insofar as it relates to the quantum
and enhance the quantum of compensation from Rs.1,30,000/- to
Rs.3,00,000/- payable by the respondents to the appellant by suitably
enhancing the compensation by award dated 09.07.2015 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.41 of
2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at
Karaikal.
For Appellant : Mr.L.Poovendra Perumal
for M/s Sai Bharath and Ilan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.392 of 2019
For R1 and R2 : No appearance
For R3 : Mr.S.Arunkumar
JUDGM E N T
Not being satisfied by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal District Judge, Karaikal in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.41of 2014 on 09.07.2015, the
appellant herein has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for
enhancement of compensation.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 140 r/w 166(1)(a)of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- together
with interest.
3. The learned Tribunal after hearing both sides arguments and upon
consideration of oral and documentary evidence has passed an award for an
amount of Rs.1,30,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of the petition (i.e.27.01.2014)till the date of deposit.
4. Mr.L.Poovendra Perumal, the learned counsel for the appellant would
strenuously argue that the Doctor (P.W.2) assessed the disability of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.392 of 2019
injured as 40%. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2000/- per percentage and per
percentage Rs.3000/- may be awarded. He would further contend that the
injured was in hospital as an inpatient from 24.10.2013 to 30.10.2013. He
would further submit that for transport expenses and extra nourishment the
amount awarded is insufficient. No amount was awarded for attender
charges, for loss of amenities and for future medical expenses. To buttress
his argument, he cited of Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S y e d
Sa d i q Vs Un i t e d Ind i a Insu r a n c e C om p a n y reported in 2 0 1 4
(1 ) TANM A C 459 (SC ) , wherein, the monthly income of an injured
vegetable vendor, aged 24 years was fixed at Rs.6500/- per month for the
accident that occurred in the year 2008 and as such the monthly income
fixed for the appellant may be enhanced. The Tribunal has granted loss of
income only for three months and that may be enhanced to six months.
5. Per contra, Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the third respondent
– Insurance Company would vehemently argue that the Doctor who treated the
injured was not examined. The Tribunal has taken disability as 30% is proper.
It is the further argument of the learned counsel for the third respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.392 of 2019
that as far as the income, no document was filed. To claim future medical
expenses, further treatment record was also not filed. Hence, the appellant is
not entitled to claim the same. He further contended that the tribunal after
taking into consideration of oral and documentary evidence has passed an
award for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- is a well reasoned order. Hence, the same
needs no interference.
6. Heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the third respondent – Insurance Company and
perused the materials on record.
7. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1/injured that on 24.10.2013, at
about 10.30 a.m, when he was riding his TVS Scooty Pep motor cycle bearing
Registration No.PY 02 D 3773 along Nagore - Karaikal Main Road, proceeding
from south to north direction, at the point of S.S.N.Petrol Bunk, Keezha
Vanjore,Thirumalairayanpattinam, the rider of Hero Honda Splendor Plus
motor cycle bearing Registration No.PY 02 C 5644 came in a rash and
negligent manner from the same direction and suddenly turned without any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.392 of 2019
signal or indicator, dashed the injured from behind. Due to the said impact,
he sustained serious injuries, is not in dispute.
8. It is the further evidence of P.W.1/injured that he suffered head
injury resulted in epidural haemorrhage and linear fracture in occipital bone
extending into floor of posterior fossa on right side. He had taken initial
treatment at General Hospital, Karaikal as per Ex.P8 Accident Register. Ex.P2
and Ex.P8 are the treatment records issued by the Meenakshi Hospital,
Thanjavur and General Hospital, Karaikal respectively which confirms the fact
that he had taken treatment from 24.10.2013 to 30.10.2013. As regards the
assessment of disability, Dr.Swaminathan was examined as P.W.2. He would
depose that considering the age of the appellant, there is a possibility for
reducing the disabilities by way of doing physiotherapy and on medication.
9. It is seen from the disability certificate Ex.P12, it appears that P.W.2
has given break up figures, as to how he has arrived at 40% of disability.
Though the Doctor is expected to assess the disability based on the physical
disabilities, P.W.2 has assessed based on the post effects of the injured.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.392 of 2019
Therefore, the disability was taken as 30% by the Tribunal cannot be found
fault with. The year of the accident is 2013. It was the evidence of the injured
P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 that due to the accident, he suffered from head ache,
giddiness and finding difficulties doing hard work. Therefore, this Court deems
fit to grant a sum of Rs.30,000/- in addition to the amount which was
already granted for the disability suffered.
10. As regards, the income of the claimant, it was stated that he was
doing real estate business and supplying water, thereby he was earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. As there was no documents filed to substantiate the
same, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/- per
month.
11. As regards, the fixing of income in motor accident cases, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in S y e d Sa d i q V s Un i t e d Ind i a Insu r a n c e
C om p a n y reported in 2 0 1 4 (1 ) TANM A C 459 (SC ) , has fixed the
income of an injured vegetable vendor, aged 24 years at Rs.6,500/- per
month for the accident that occurred on 2008. The accident has taken place
in the year 2013. Therefore, this Court deems fit to fix the income of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.392 of 2019
appellant at Rs.9000/- per month.
12. Taking into account of the nature of injuries sustained by the
appellant, he is entitled for loss of income for five months, which is re-
worked as Rs.9000* 5=Rs.45,000/-.
13. A perusal of the documents marked, it appears that no further
treatment record was marked to prove the fact that he took further
treatment. Therefore, in view of the same, no amount is granted for future
medical expenses. Considering the age and nature of injuries sustained by the
appellant, the appellant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- in addition to the amount
already granted for Pain and Suffering. For Transport expenses and for extra
nourishment, an amount of Rs.14,000/- is granted in addition to the amount
already granted by the Tribunal.
14. In all other aspects, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal appears
to be reasonable and hence, the same needs no interference.
15. Based on the aforesaid details the compensation awarded by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.392 of 2019
Tribunal is modified as follows:
S. De s c r i p t i o n Amo u n t Amou n t Awa r d
No aw a r d e d b y awa r d e d by con f i r m e d or
Tr i b u n a l th i s Cou r t en h a n c e d o r
(R s ) (Rs ) gra n t e d
1. Permanent Disability 60,000/- 90,000/- Enhanced
2. Pain and Suffering 10,000/- 20,000/- Enhanced
3. Towards Transport 6,000/- 20,000/- Enhanced
expenses and extra
nourishment
4. Medical Expenses 40,130/- 40,130/- Confirmed
5. Loss of Income for the 13,500/- 45,000/- Enhanced
treatment period
To t a l Rs . 1 , 3 0 , 0 0 0 / Rs . 2 , 1 5 , 1 3 0 / - Enh a n c e d by
- Rs . 8 5 , 1 3 0 / -
16.In the result,
16(i).This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,30,000/- is hereby enhanced to
Rs.2,15,130/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of deposit.
16(ii).The third 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 eight
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.392 of 2019
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.41 of 2014, dated 09.07.2015 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal District Judge, Karaikal.
16(iii). On such deposit, the appellant / claimant is permitted to
withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest
and costs, less the amount if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary
cheque application before the Tribunal. No costs.
05.07.2023
mn
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.392 of 2019
R.KALA I M A T H I , J.
mn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Karaikal.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.392 of 2019
05.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
