Madras High Court
Minor Johan vs Angayarkanni (Given Up) on 27 November, 2023
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
CMA.No.760 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CMA.No.760 of 2020
Minor Johan
Rep. By Father and Natural Guardian Ramesh ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Angayarkanni (Given up)
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
3217 East Main Road,
Pudukottai – 622 001.
3. S.Selvarajan (Given up)
4. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Chennai. ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of he Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009
passed in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Judge, Perambalur.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Anand
For Respondents : Ms.R.Sreevidhya, for R2
: R1 & R3 – Given up
: No Appearance, for R4
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.760 of 2020
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2007 dated 21.12.2009 by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Perambalur.
2. The case of the appellant is that, on 13.01.2006 at about 04.30 am.,
when the appellant along with other persons were travelling in a Indica car
bearing Regn.No.TN-10-M-7677 owned by the 3rd respondent insured with
the 4th respondent, a Tourist bus bearing Regn.No.TN-02-Q-7797, owned by
the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent, driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner which came in the opposite direction dashed
against the above said car in which the appellant was traveling, as a result of
which one Selvakumar died on spot and the appellant and other occupants
of the car sustained grievous injuries and got admitted in the hospital.
Thereby, the appellant filed a claim petition, claiming a compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/-. After contest, the tribunal, vide impugned judgment
awarded a compensation of Rs.3,36,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the
claimant had preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the above said
accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the 1st respondent bus, due to which the appellant sustained grievous
injuries all over his body and at the time of accident, the appellant was only
aged about 7 years and due to the injuries sustained by him, he is suffering
from 90% permanent disability and the same is evident from the depositions
of the Doctors who have examined the appellant, however, without
considering the same, the tribunal instead of adopting multiplier method,
had awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- under the head Disability, which is very
meagre. Further, the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other
heads are also on the lower side and the same has to be enhanced.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent
submitted that, by considering all the relevant documents, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded the compensation, which does not require any enhancement.
Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard counsel for the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent and
perused the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the
parties. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. The only
grievance of the appellant is with regard to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the tribunal. It is the claim of the appellant that, at the time of
the appellant was aged about only 7 years and due to the injuries sustained
by him, he suffered 90% permanent disability and the appellant got mental
disorders and in order to prove the same, the P.W.4 and P.W.5, Doctors who
have examined and treated the appellant were examined before the tribunal,
who have clearly deposed the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant
and that, the appellant sustained 92.06% disability and issued Disability
certificate Ex.P.33 to that effect, however, the tribunal had awarded only a
sum of Rs.90,000/- under the head Disability, which is very meagre.
7. A perusal of the impugned award, particularly the Disability
certificate makes it clear, due to the above accident, the appellant lost his
memory and is unable to perform his day to day duties without the help of
others and he almost went to vegetative state and thereby, considering the
nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the tribunal ought to have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
adopted the multiplier method, since the disability sustained by the
appellant is functional in nature and that the extent of the disability would
really hamper the appellant from discharging his work, however, as the
tribunal failed to adopt multiplier method for awarding compensation, this
Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned award.
8. Considering the fact that the disability suffered by the claimant is
beyond 90% and the nature of injuries suffered has a lasting impact on the
day-to-day activities of the claimant, though it is difficult to have accurate
assessment of the compensation which could be given in respect of the
disability suffered by the claimant, this Court by relying upon the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Ors. Vs. Lala & Ors.
reported in MANU/SC/0864/2013, fixes the notional income of the
appellant as Rs.40,000/- per annum and the appellant being aged about 7
years at the time of accident, as evidenced from the records, adopting the
multiplier of 15, the loss of earning due to disability is arrived at
Rs.40,000/- * 15 = Rs.6,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards
Transportation charges and Future medical expenses, therefore, this Court
awards a sum of Rs.50,000/- under each head. The Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.10,000/-each under the heads Pain and suffering and extra
nourishment respectively, which is on lower side and the same has to be
enhanced.
10. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified as under :-
S. Heads Awarded by Awarded by
No. the Tribunal this Court
(Amount in (Amount in
Rs.) Rs.)
1 Disability 90,000/- 6,00,000/-
(enhanced)
2 Medical expenses 2,26,000/- 2,26,000/-
3 Pain and sufferings 10,000/- 50,000/-
(enhanced)
4 Extra nourishment 10,000/- 50,000/-
(enhanced)
5 Future medical Expenses - 50,000/-
(Granted)
6 Transportation charges - 50,000/-
(Granted)
Total 3,36,000/- 10,26,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. Further, it is pertinent to note that, when the claim petition was
filed in the year 2007, the appellant was minor, aged about 7 years and now,
the appellant would have attained majority. Though no application has been
taken out to declare the appellant as major, this Court suo motu takes into
account the age given in the claim petition and also taking into account the
efflux of time, declares the appellant as major and discharges his guardian
Mr.Ramesh from the guardianship. The Registry shall carry out the
necessary amendments.
12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the
impugned Award of the Tribunal is modified, enhancing the compensation
amount from Rs.3,36,000/- to Rs.10,26,000/-. The second respondent-
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2007 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded
by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period
of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deposit being made by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, the Tribunal
is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the bank of the appellant
/claimant through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter, upon
production of proof with regard to payment of Court fee on the enhanced
compensation by the appellant/claimant. There shall be no order as to costs
in the present appeal.
27.11.2023
skt
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
Copy to:
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge,
Perambalur.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI., J.
skt
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
