Madras High Court

Chiranjeevi vs T.Vinayagam on 27 November, 2023

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                                       CMA.No.805 of 2020

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 27.11.2023

                                                         CORAM:

                                    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                    CMA.No.805 of 2020

                     Chiranjeevi                                                           ...Appellant

                                                              Vs.

                     1.      T.Vinayagam
                             (R1 set exparte by the tribunal, hence, notice maybe dispensed with)

                     2.      The Manager,
                             National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                             Zemith House, No.7, Umpherson Street,
                             Opposite to Kuralagam, Chennai – 600 108.                 ...Respondents


                                   Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of he Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in
                     MCOP.No.957         of   2007    dated    07.02.2012   on   the     file   of   the
                     MACT/Additional District Court, FTC III at Tiruvallur.

                                    For Appellant      : Ms.A.Sulochana

                                    For Respondents : Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan, for R2
                                                    : R1 – Exparte



                     1/9


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     CMA.No.805 of 2020

                                                         JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment and decree passed in MCOP.No.957 of 2007 dated 07.02.2012 on

the file of the MACT/Additional District Court, FTC III at Tiruvallur.

2. The case of the appellant is that, on 22.04.2007 at about 21.40

hours, when the appellant and one Karthick were proceeding in a Bajaj M80

bearing Regn.No.AP-26-C-1910, the lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-28-H-2019

owned by the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent, driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the vehicle in which

the appellant was traveling, as a result of which the said Karthick sustained

fatal injuries all over his body and died on spot and the appellant herein

sustained grievous head injuries and got admitted in the hospital. Thereby

the LRs of the deceased Karthick and the appellant filed their respective

claim petition and the tribunal took both the claims together and after

contest, the tribunal, vide impugned judgment awarded a compensation of

Rs.60,000/- in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved with 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 lorry, due to which one person lost his life and the

appellant herein sustained grievous injuries all over his body and also lost

vision in one of his eye. Though, no AR copy was available on the date of

accident, however, Ex.P6, Discharge summary issued by the Tirupathi

SVRRGGH Government Hospital on the next date is available in which it is

mentioned that the appellant sustained laceration injury on left forehead and

he was discharged on 23.04.2007 and though the eye injury sustained by the

appellant is not mentioned in the said document, however, from the Neuro

surgical operation chit marked as Ex.P7, it is evident that the appellant lost

vision in his right eye. Further, other than the eye injury, the appellant

sustained grievous head injury, for which, the PW4, Doctor assessed 25%

disability, for which, necessarily the tribunal ought to have awarded

compensation by applying multiplier method, as the appellant being a

Savoury master by profession, is unable to continue his avocation which he

was carrying on before the accident. However, the tribunal rejected the

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

entire disability sustained by the appellant holding that the eye injury

sustained by the appellant was not due to the accident and even prior to the

accident, the appellant had lost vision in his eye and had awarded a meagre

compensation of Rs.34,000/- under the head permanent disability which is

not sustainable. Further, the compensation awarded by the tribunal under

the other heads are also on the lower side and the same has to necessarily be

enhanced.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent

submitted that, though the accident took place on 22.04.2007, however no

AR copy is available on the said date and even in the discharge summary

available for the next date, there is no mentioning with regard to the alleged

eye injury sustained by the appellant. In the absence of any concrete

evidence, the tribunal had rightly rejected the claim of the appellant and the

tribunal, after considering all the relevant documents placed before it, had

passed the present award which does not warrants interference of this Court.

Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

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

5. Heard counsel for the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent and

perused the materials placed on record.

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/claimant is with regard to the quantum of

compensation awarded by the tribunal.

7. Though the appellant claimed that he sustained eye injury due to

the above said accident, when the same was objected by the opposite party,

it is the duty cast upon the claimant to prove his claim by examining

individual witnesses and by producing relevant documents, however the

claimant failed to do so. Hence in the absence of any contra evidence, the

tribunal had rightly held that the no eye injury was sustained by the

appellant due to the above said accident, for which no compensation can be

awarded and thereby denied to award compensation for the disability in

respect of the eye injury. However, the tribunal had failed to award

compensation for the disability of 25% sustained by the appellant due to the

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

other grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, which is perverse and

only to that extent, the impugned award of the tribunal is liable to be

interfered with.

8. Therefore, considering the age of the appellant and the injuries

sustained by him, this Court deems it fit to award a sum of Rs.3,000/-

Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head permanent disability

stands modified to Rs.75,000/-. (25*3000=75,000). Further a sum of

Rs.9,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- has been awarded under the head

“pain and suffering”, “extra nourishment” and “transportation” respectively

which are on the lower side and therefore the same has to be enhanced.

9. No compensation has been awarded under the head attender

charges and therefore a sum of Rs.5,000/- has to be awarded under the said

head

10. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

is modified as under :-

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

Heads Awarded by the Awarded by this Tribunal (Amount in Court (Amount in Rs.) Rs.) Loss of earning 9,000/- 9,000/-

                            Transportation                                 1,000/-               2,000/-
                                                                                             (enhanced)
                            Extra nourishment                              2,000/-               5,000/-
                                                                                             (enhanced)
                            Pain and suffering                             9,000/-              25,000/-
                                                                                             (enhanced)
                            Medical expenses                               5,000/-                5,000/-
                            Attender charges                                       -              5,000/-
                            Permanent Disability                          34,000/-              75,000/-
                                                                                             (enhanced)
                                                     Total             Rs.60,000/-          Rs.1,26,000/-

11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

and the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified enhancing the

compensation amount from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,26,000/-. The 2nd

respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the above said amount

awarded by this Court to the credit of MCOP.No.957 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 four weeks (4) from the date of

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

receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the

Tribunal is directed to transfer the said amount directly to the bank account

of the appellant/claimant through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks

thereafter, upon production of necessary proof for payment of court fee for

the enhanced compensation by the appellant. 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: