Madras High Court
M.Ravindran vs N.Chitra on 26 July, 2023
C.M.A. No.1068 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.1068 of 2022
M.Ravindran .. Appellant
Vs.
1.N.Chitra
(R-1 set exparte before the Tribunal)
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Motor Third Party Claim Cell,
No.115, Prakasam Salai, 2nd Floor,
Broadway, Chennai - 600 108. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2021 passed
in MCOP No.1511 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chennai (IV Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy
for R2
_____
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1068 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants
challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the
award dated 25.10.2021 passed in MCOP No.1511 of 2016 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (IV Small Causes Court), Chennai.
2.The appellant filed M.C.O.P. No.1511 of 2016 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (IV Small Causes Court), Chennai claiming
a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in
the accident that took place on 09.12.2015.
3. According to the appellant, on 09.12.2015, while he was riding the
motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN12 4633 from Moolakothalam to
Washermanpet along the C.B.Road in the South to North direction, near
Railway Bridge, a lorry bearing Regn. No.TN25 R 2166 which was driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner along the said road in the North to
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1068 of 2022
South direction, hit against the motorcycle and caused the accident. In the
above said accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and hence he
filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents.
4. The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal.
5. The 2nd respondent filed counter statement denying the averments
made in the claim petition. The 2nd respondent denied the age, avocation,
income of the appellant and nature of injuries sustained in the accident. The
total compensation claimed by the appellant is excessive and prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
6. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and
marked nineteen documents as Exs.P.1 to Exs.P.19. Neither documents were
marked nor witnesses were examined on the side of the 2nd respondent. The
Medical Board Certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board, Govt.
Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai was marked as Ex.C1.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1068 of 2022
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1068 of 2022
7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and documents filed on
the side of the appellant, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1 st respondent and
directed the 2nd respondent / insurance company, being the insurer of the lorry
to pay a sum of Rs.4,98,853/- as compensation to the appellant at the first
instance and recover the same from the first respondent, owner of the vehicle
since the driver of the lorry did not possess valid driving licence at the time of
accident. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
Tribunal while computing the compensation to be awarded to the appellant,
had not taken into account Ex.P3 – Medical Bills produced on behalf of the
appellant. As per Ex.P3- final medical bill issued by the hospital, the
appellant had to pay a sum of Rs.10,22,584/- towards medical expenses.
Since the appellant had taken mediclaim policy, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1068 of 2022
reimbursed by the mediclaim insurance company and the balance medical bill
paid by the appellant was Rs.6,22,584/-. The Tribunal, however had taken
into consideration Ex.P7 – physiotherapy bills for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and
Ex.P8 – medical bills issued by the hospital for a sum of Rs.8,853/- and
awarded only a sum of Rs.1,28,853/- under the head medical expenses. The
Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future medical expenses. The
amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads loss of amenities, pain and
sufferings, transport expenses, extra nourishment and attender charges are
meagre. For the above reasons, the learned counsel prayed for enhancement
of compensation.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
Tribunal had taken into consideration all the documents filed in support of the
claim for medical bills and had rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,28,853/- under
the head medical expenses. The learned counsel further submitted that the
appellant had taken mediclaim policy and the medical expenses have been
reimbursed by the mediclaim insurance company. Hence, the appellant is not
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1068 of 2022
entitled to claim the medical expenses. The compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Though notice has been served on the first respondent and his
name has been printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him
either in person or through counsel.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as 2 nd
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
12. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was
right in awarding a sum of Rs.1,28,853/- as compensation under the head
medical expenses.
13. From the materials on record, it is seen that the appellant has
produced three documents before the Tribunal to establish his claim under the
head medical expenses. Ex.P3 is the final medical bill issued by the hospital
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1068 of 2022
showing a sum of Rs.10,22,584/- as the medical expenses for the treatment
taken by the appellant. Ex.P3 also contains a letter issued by the hospital
which shows that out of Rs.10,22,584/-, the mediclaim insurance company
had reimbursed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and the balance amount paid by the
appellant was Rs.6,22,584/-. The Tribunal had not taken into consideration
this amount though it had referred Ex.P3-final medical bills. Thus the
appellant is entitled to this amount in addition to the amount towards
physiotheraphy treatment and other medical expenses incurred by him.
Ex.P7 is the physiotherapy bill for the treatment taken by the appellant for the
period from July 2016 to February 2018. The Tribunal had accepted Ex.P7 -
physiotheraphy bill for Rs.1,20,000/- and Ex.P8 series – medical bills for
Rs.8,853/- and awarded a sum of Rs.1,28,853/- only towards medical
expenses. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the medical
expenses is hereby enhanced to Rs.7,51,437/- [Rs,10,22,584 – Rs.4,00,000 =
6,22,584 + 8853 + 1,20,000/-]. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads are just and reasonable and hence the same are confirmed.
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1068 of 2022
Rs.4,98,853/- to Rs.11,21,437/-, break-up as follows -
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1068 of 2022
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Disability 1,75,000/- 1,75,000/- Confirmed
2. Medical expenses 1,28,853/- 7,51,437/- Enhanced
and physiotherapy
bills
3. Loss of income 34,000/- 34,000/- Confirmed
4. Pain and sufferings 25,000/- 25,000/- Confirmed
5. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
expenses
6. Nutrition expenses 30,000/- 30,000/- Confirmed
7. Damages to clothes 2,000/- 2,000/- Confirmed
8. Attender charges 19,000/- 19,000/- Confirmed
9. Loss of amenities 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed
10. Mental Agony 25,000/- 25,000/- Confirmed
Total 4,98,853/- 11,21,437/- Enhanced
by
Rs.6,22,584/-
14. With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.4,98,853/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.11,21,437/- together with interest at
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1068 of 2022
7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if any) from the date of
petition till the date of deposit. The second 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 six (6) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of this Judgment, at
the first instance and recover the same from the first respondent, owner of the
lorry. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award
amount, now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the
amount if any, already withdrawn. The appellant is directed to pay the
necessary Court Fee, if any, on the enhanced award amount. No costs.
26.07.2023
rgr
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
1. The IV Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1068 of 2022
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
SUNDER MOHAN, J
rgr
C.M.A. No. 1068 of 2022
Dated: 26.07.2023
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
