Madras High Court

T. Chandramohan vs The Municipal Corporation on 24 November, 2023

                                                                                     C.M.A. No. 1903 of 2021


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED : 24.11.2023

                                                            CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

                                                   C.M.A. No. 1903 of 2021

                     T. Chandramohan                                 ... Appellant / Petitioner

                                                               Vs.

                     1.           The Municipal Corporation,
                                  Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation,
                                  Coimbatore Districyt 641001.

                     2.           United India Insurance
                                    Company Limited,
                                  CB Hub, 1st Floor,
                                  104-A, Peramur Main Road,
                                  Peramanur, Salem 636007.            ... Respondents / Respondents


                                  Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018
                     passed in M.C.O.P. No.1614 of 2016 on the file of the Special Sub Judge,
                     No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem.


                                  For Appellant    :       Mr. C. Thangaraju
                                  For R1           :       Mr. K. Natarajan
                                  For R2           :       Mr. J. Chandran


                     1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    C.M.A. No. 1903 of 2021


                                                         JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the claimant

seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P. No.1614 of

2016, dated 21.08.2018 on the file of the Special Sub Judge No.1, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein

according to their litigative status and rank before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimant is that on 25.06.2016 at about 7:15AM,

the claimant was riding a Honda Shine Motor Cycle bearing Registration

No.TN-37-CP-5368 on Kovai Vellalore to Singanallur Petrol Bunk and

when he reached near Royal Bakery, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-37-

AZ-5405 belongs to the first respondent, driven by its driver in rash and

negligent manner, hit on the claimants motor cycle, causing grievous injuries

to the claimant. A criminal case was also registered against the driver of the

lorry in Cr.No.416/2016 U/s. 279, 337 of I.P.C on the file of the Coimbatore

(Dt), TIW(E) Police station. Due to the injuries sustained, the claimant has

come forward with a claim petition seeking compensation for a sum of

Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act

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

and Rule 3 of Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rule.

4. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry bearing Registration

No.TN-37-AZ-5405 has filed a counter and disputed the manner in which

the accident has taken place and also disputed the age, income, occupation,

nature of injuries and disability of the claimant. The first respondent also

contended that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and

negligence on the part of the claimant not by the driver of the lorry, hence

prays to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The second respondent - insurance company has filed a

counter and denied all the facts in the claim petition and also disputed the

age, occupation, income, nature of injury, period of treatment and disability

of the claimant. The insurance company also contended that the

compensation claimed under various heads is on the higher side, hence prays

to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and

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

P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked and on the side of

the respondents no witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked.

7. Based on the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal in point

no.1, has held that the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the

lorry bearing Registration No.TN-37-AZ-5405 is responsible for the

accident. In point no.2, the Tribunal has quantified and granted

compensation for a sum of Rs.10,48,102/- along with interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization.

8. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation, the claimant

has come forward with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant has submitted

that the Tribunal has not properly considered the nature of injuries sustained

by the claimant during the accident and adopted percentage method for

granting compensation under the head disability. The Tribunal ought to have

adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation and also submitted

that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on the lower side,

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

hence prays to modify the award of the Tribunal.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents

have submitted that the Tribunal based on the evidence placed on record has

rightly fixed the compensation under the head disability, since there was no

loss of income due to the injuries sustained by the claimant and also the

compensation awarded under other heads by the Tribunal is just, hence prays

to confirm the same.

11. Heard the submissions made on both sides and perused the

materials placed on record:

12. Admittedly, in this case, the claimant has sustained grievous

injuries and the Ex.P.5 wound certificate shows that the claimant has

sustained following injuries: "Comminuted peritrochanteric fracture left

femur, severely comminuted proximal and middle tibia with fibula fracture

right leg with gross swelling and Distal radius fracture with fracture base of

middle phalanx with laceration 4th web space (Rt.). The claimant was

assessed by a private doctor and the disability certificate issued by the doctor

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

is marked as Ex.P.13, which shows that the above injuries sustained by the

claimant at the time of accident has restricted the movement of his various

parts but the same has not been classified as non functional disability, hence

the Tribunal has rightly adopted percentage method for awarding

compensation. On perusal of the same, this Court is of the view that the

injuries sustained by the claimant has not reduced any loss of earning

capacity, hence as per the guidelines framed in the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar reported in [2011 ACJ 1], the

injuries sustained by the claimant are treated as non functional disability,

hence the disability fixed by the doctor is hereby accepted.

13. However, as per this Court judgment in M. Chinnathambi vs.

S. Deepa and another reported in [CDJ 2020 MHC 1013; 2020 (1)

TNMAC 617], this Court has awarded Rs.5,000/- per percentage of disability

for the accident cases taken place from the year 2016, hence, considering the

date of accident, this Court is inclined to modify the award of Rs.3,000/- per

percentage of disability by the Tribunal to Rs.5,000/-, hence the total

compensation granted under the disability is modified to Rs.2,48,700/-

(Rs.4,000/- x 49.74% of disability).

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

14. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards

pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/-

towards extra nourishment. This Court finds the compensation awarded

under the above heads by the Tribunal are on the lower side on considering

the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, hence this Court is inclined

to modify the same to Rs.40,000/- each towards pain and suffering and loss

of amenities and Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment. Whereas the other

heads are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a just compensation, hence

the same are hereby confirmed.

15. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal under various

heads are hereby modified as follows:

S. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed
Tribunal this Court or enhanced
(Rs) (Rs) or reduced
1. Pain and Suffering 30,000/- 40,000/- Enhanced
2. Loss of income --- --- ---
3. Medical expenses 8,32,132/- 8,32,132/- Confirmed
4. Transportation expenses 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
5. Extra nourishment 10,000/- 20,000/- Enhanced
6. Attender charges 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed

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

S. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed
Tribunal this Court or enhanced
(Rs) (Rs) or reduced
7. Damage to clothes 1,750/- 1,750/- Confirmed
8. Loss of amenities 5,000/- 40,000/- Enhanced
9. Permanent disability 1,49,102/- 2,48,700/- Enhanced
Total Compensation 10,48,102/- 12,02,582/- Enhanced

16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed

and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.10,48,102/- is hereby

enhanced to Rs.12,02,582/- [Rupees Twelve Lakh Two Thousand Five

Hundred and Eighty Two only] together along with interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition till the date of

deposit. The second respondent -Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the amount awarded by this Court along with interest and costs, less the

amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1614 of

2016 on the file of the Special Sub Judge No.1, Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Salem. On such deposit, the appellant/ claimant is permitted to

withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court along with