Madras High Court
Palanisamy vs The Managing Director on 9 June, 2023
C.M.A.No.1409 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 09.06.2023
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
CMA.No.1409 of 2022
Palanisamy
...Appellant
Vs.
The Managing Director,
MTC Metro Transport Corporation Limited,
Pallavan House,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
...Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.257 of
2016 dated 25.09.2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II
Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Mrs.M.Malar
For Respondent: Mr.M.Murali Vinodh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A.No.1409 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the Award and Decree passed in
M.C.O.P.No.257 of 2016 dated 25.09.2019 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
2. The claimant has filed the above appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
On 29.10.2015, while the appellant was walking on Arcot Road, near
Porur signal, a bus belonging to the respondent, driven by its driver in rash and
negligent manner, hit the appellant, due to which, the appellant sustained
grievous injuries.
3. According to the appellant, the negligence of the MTC driver resulted
in the accident. The appellant was aged 40 years at the time of the accident and
was self employed (Mason/ Construction work) and earning a sum of Rs.700/-
per day. The appellant therefore filed the claim petition seeking Rs.10,00,000/-
as compensation.
4. The respondent/ Transport Corporation filed a detailed counter
denying all the averments in the claim petition including negligence, quantum
and liability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1409 of 2022
5. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1
and marked Ex.P.1 to P6 in support of his claim. The respondent examined one
witness R.W.1 and marked two documents, Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
6. The Claims Tribunal on an assessment of the entire evidence on record
rendered a finding of negligence against the driver of the Transport Corporation
and assessed the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- along with 7.5% interest.
7. Not satisfied with the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal, the
claimant has filed the above appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this is a fit case
for application of multiplier method and therefore, the Claims Tribunal erred in
adopting the unit method. The learned counsel further submitted that the
claimant was earning Rs.700/- per day as Mason/construction worker and
because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he was not able to earn
as before. The award under other heads according to the counsel, is meagre and
deserved to be modified.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1409 of 2022
9. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted
that the award of the Claims Tribunal was just, fair and reasonable and did not
call for any interference by this Court.
10. I have heard both the learned counsels and have perused the materials
placed on record.
11. It is seen that the appellant sustained fracture of right thigh and right
humur fracture, head injuries and other injuries all over the body. The Medical
Board under Ex.P.6 certified that the appellant had sustained 30% permanent
disability. The Claims Tribunal, without even considering the functional
disability, straight away adopted the unit method, which, in my view, is un-
sustainable. Admittedly, the appellant was a Mason (Construction work) and
therefore, the aforesaid injuries sustained by him would impact his earning
capacity. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and its
impact on the appellants earning capacity. I fix the functional disability at 20%.
The appellant was Mason and according to him he was earning Rs.700/- per
day. In my view the claimed is on the higher side. In my opinion Rs.350/- per
day for 25 days would be reasonable income.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1409 of 2022
12. I am therefore of the view that the income of the claimant can be
fixed at Rs.8,750/- per month. The compensation towards disability is arrived
at Rs.3,15,000/- i.e (8750*12*15=157500*20/100=3,15,000/-).
13.In view of above discussion, the award of the Tribunal is modified as
follows:
S.No Various Heads Award by Tribunal Award by this Court
(amount in Rs.) (amount in Rs.)
1. Compensation for disability 90,000 3,15,000/-
2. Pain and Sufferings 5,000/- 25,000/-
3. Extra Nourishment expenses 5,000/- 15,000/-
Total 1,00,000/- 3,55,000/-
14. I therefore find that the appellant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.3,55,000/- along with 7.5% interest.
13. It is seen that in CMP.No.6258 of 2022 filed to condone the delay of
555 days, this Court vide order dated 15.06.2022 condoned the delay, on
condition that the appellant would forefeit interest for the delay period of 555
days. It is therefore made clear that the appellant would not be entitled to
interest for the delay period of 555 days.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1409 of 2022
14. The respondent/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the
compensation awarded by this Court within a period of six (6) weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this Judgment, less the amount if any, already
deposited. On such deposit being made, the appellant shall be entitled to
withdraw the same.
In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
09.06.2022
dsn
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1409 of 2022
To.
1.The II Additional District Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Tiruvallur.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1409 of 2022
N.MALA.J.,
dsn
C.M.A.No.1409 of 2022
09.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
