Madras High Court
Bavani Bai vs R.Yuvaraj on 6 July, 2023
C.M.A.No.1559 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.M.A.No.1559 of 2018
Bavani Bai
...Appellants
Vs
1.R.Yuvaraj
2.United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.134, Silingi Buildings, 4th Floor,
Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the award dated 23.11.2017 and made in
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.655 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.F.Terry Chellaraja
For Respondents : R1-set exparte
Mr.S.Arun Kumar for R2
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1559 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to enhance the award dated
23.11.2017 and made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.655 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal
had awarded only a sum of Rs.21,100/- towards the medical bills. He would
further submit that the injured was admitted in a private hospital for a period of
57 days and had undergone implantation surgery. The entire medical bills were
produced before the Tribunal as Document No.10 and the said document was
marked as Ex.P4. A perusal of the said medical bills would show that the
medical expenses would come around a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the
Court below, without considering the medical bills in proper perspective had
only awarded a sum of Rs.21,100/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1559 of 2018
3. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that he
had also perused the entire medical bills, which was marked as Ex.P4 and had
accepted that those bills available were worth about a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
Therefore, he requests this Court to pass any order in accordance with law.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent and
perused the materials available on record.
5. Considering the submission made by both the learned counsel, this
Court is of the considered view that in the present case the medical bills, worth
Rs.2,00,000/- were available and the same was marked as Ex.P4, however, the
Tribunal had awarded only Rs.21,100/- for medical expenses without
considering Ex.P4. Therefore, this Court is inclined to award a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards the compensation of medical bills instead of Rs.21,100/-
as ordered by the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that with regard to
disability, the Tribunal had awarded only a sum of Rs.16,500/-. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1559 of 2018
disability was assessed by the Doctor at 70%. While passing the award, the
Tribunal had failed to take the said percentage into consideration and awarded a
meagre amount of Rs.16,500/- towards disability and awarded Rs.12,000/-
towards loss of income. Hence he would contend that the Tribunal should have
applied the multiplier method and awarded compensation.
7. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that if
this Court is inclined to award the compensation based on multiplier method,
this Court may take the functional disability at 15% into consideration and to
fix the notional income as Rs.8,000/-.
8. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that at
least 20% as functional disability and notional income as Rs.9,000/- may be
taken into consideration by this Court.
9. In view of the above, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to
take the functional disability as 15% and a sum of Rs.8,000/- is fixed as
notional income. Since in the present case, the disability is partial and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1559 of 2018
permanent in nature, this Court is not inclined to award anything with regard to
the future prosperous. Accordingly, the compensation for disability and notional
income is fixed by this Court and applied the multiplier method as follows:
Rs.8000*12*14*15% = Rs.2,01,600/-
10. Accordingly, the award amount towards disability and loss of income
is set aside and this Court by applying multiplier method awarded the loss of
income as a sum of Rs.2,01,600/-. Accordingly, the award is modified as
follows:
S.No. Heads Compensation Compensation
awarded by Tribunal awarded by this
(Rs.) Court (Rs.)
1 Medical Bills 21,100 2,00,000
2 Disability 16,500 Added with disability
3 Attendance Charges 2,000 2,000
4 Loss of Income 12,000 2,01,600
5 Pain and Suffering 10,000 10,000
6 Transport to Hospital 5,000 5,000
7 Extra Nourishment 5,000 5,000
Total 71,600 4,23,600
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1559 of 2018
11. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby increased
from Rs.71,600/- to Rs.4,23,600/-. In all other aspects, the award of the
Tribunal stands confirmed.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the second respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.4,23,600/- along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if
any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, to the credit of MCATOP.No.655 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court II, Chennai. The Tribunal is
directed to transfer the entire amount to the claimant by way of RTGS, within a
period of three weeks from the deposit or from the date of receipt of the Bank
details obtained for the claimant or application for withdrawal from the
claimant, whichever is earlier. No costs.
06.07.2023
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
nsa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1559 of 2018
To:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1559 of 2018
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.
nsa
C.M.A.No.1559 of 2018
06.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
