Irudhayaraj vs The Managing Director
2023 Latest Caselaw 8478 Mad

                                                                                 CMA No. 1396 / 2022

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 18.07.2023

                                                        CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                        Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1396 of 2022

                     Irudhayaraj                                       ... Appellant
                                                          Versus

                     The Managing Director,
                     Karnataka State Transport Corporation Limited,
                     Mysore,
                     Karnataka State.                           ... Respondent

                     PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking to set aside the Judgment and decree
                     dated 05.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P. No. 173 of 2003 on the file of the
                     Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram and
                     allow the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.


                                  For Appellant     : Mr. C. Prabakaran.

                                  For Respondent    : Mr. T. Thiyagarajan.


                                             JUDGMENT

The appeal has been filed by the petitioner challenging the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 173

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1396 / 2022

of 2003 dated 05.01.2018.

2.The appellant had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal

stating that on 08.12.2002 while the appellant was travelling in a Maruthi

Omni Van bearing Registration No. TN 07 M 723 along with his friend's

family from Vellore to Chennai, the respondent's bus bearing

Registration No. K.A 09 F 2617 came from Chennai towards Vellore in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Omni Van as a result

of which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and some passengers

of the Van died on the spot and thus he is entitled for compensation.

3.The respondent remained ex-parte before the tribunal.

4.The appellant examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.18. No witness was examined on the side of the respondent and no

document was marked.

5.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary

evidence awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant to be

paid by the respondent. Aggrieved by the said quantum of compensation, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1396 / 2022

the appellant had preferred the instant appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the

Tribunal had found that the appellant was entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.6,21,800/- had restricted the award to Rs.1,00,000/-,

since the claim had been restricted to Rs.1,00,000/-. The said approach

of the Tribunal is contrary to the settled position of law. The Tribunal

ought to have awarded just compensation and ought not to have

restricted the award to Rs.1,00,000/-.

7.The learned counsel for the respondent per contra submitted that

though they had not filed an appeal challenging the said award, the

reasons given by the Tribunal for holding that the appellant was entitled

to Rs.6,21,800/- is erroneous. Admittedly, the appellant had problems in

the ear, ten years prior to the accident. Ex.P.18, disability certificate

assessing the permanent disability at 60% is based on the appellant's ear

problem and has nothing to do with the accident. Further the O.P. sheet

and the accident register reveals that the appellant had suffered only

simple injuries. Hence, the multiplier method adopted is erroneous and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1396 / 2022

prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8.This Court finds that there is force in the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the respondent. Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 reveals that

the appellant was treated as out patient and the injuries sustained by him

are simple in nature. The disability certificate issued by the Medical

Board has nothing to do with the accident or the injuries sustained due to

the accident. It refers to an earlier ailment suffered by the appellant.

This cannot be the basis to determine the compensation. Therefore, the

Tribunal was wrong in determining the compensation on the basis of

disability certificate Ex.P.18 and by adopting multiplier method.

9.Further, the Tribunal had ultimately after holding that the

appellant was entitled to Rs.6,21,800/- had awarded only Rs.1,00,000/-

as compensation. This approach is also erroneous. If the Tribunal in the

circumstances felt that the appellant was entitled to Rs.6,21,800/-, it

ought not to have restricted the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the

view that the reasons given by the Tribunal for holding that the appellant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1396 / 2022

is entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,21,800/- is erroneous for the reasons

stated above. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-

which this Court considers to be reasonable and just, there is no reason to

interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal.

10.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,00,000/- is confirmed

together with interest at 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if

any) from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent is

directed to deposit the enhanced award amount now determined by this

Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if

any, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of

this Judgment. On such deposit the appellant is permitted to withdraw the

award amount along with proportionate interest and costs, less the

amount if any, already withdrawn. No costs.

18.07.2023 ay Index: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1396 / 2022

Neutral Citation: Yes / No

SUNDER MOHAN, J

ay To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram.

C.M.A. No. 1396 of 2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1396 / 2022

Dated: 18.07.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis