Madras High Court
Karunakarapandian vs Chandrababu on 4 October, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.M.A(MD)No.23 of 2020
Karunakarapandian ... Appellant
.vs.
1.Chandrababu
2.M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office, Dindigul. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2019 passed
in M.C.O.P.No.83 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief
Judicial Magistrate), Thoothukudi.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Maheswaran
For Respondents : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R2
No appearance for R1
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
JUDGMENT
************
(Judgment of the Court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,
J.)
The claimant/injured is the appellant herein, who has filed a claim
petition in M.C.O.P.No.83 of 2017 before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Thoothukudi, seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident on
21.07.2016. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, P.W.1 to
P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 were marked and on the side
of the respondents, no evidence has been adduced in both oral and
documentary.
2. On consideration of the evidence marked by the claimant, the
Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the injuries sustained by the
claimant is permanent in nature and he has suffered 100% disability and
accordingly, applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajaykumar reported in 2011 (1) MLJ 779, and
calculated a sum of Rs.71,179/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.93,95,661/- towards
permanent disability and for the income tax, 10% has been deducted and
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
further held that as per Rajkumar's case as stated supra, 1/3rd in his
income has not to be deducted necessarily. Based upon Ex.P6, Ex.P9,
Ex.P11, Ex.P12 and Ex.P.20, the Tribunal has assessed the medical
expenses as Rs.9,02,615/- and based on the evidence of P.W.1, the
Tribunal has held that since the accident had taken place, due to rash and
negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles, the Tribunal has fixed
the negligence as 50% on both the claimant and the first respondent.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant has
drawn our attention to the fact that in respect of the other injured who is
also co-passenger in the very same Bolero vehicle,
M.C.O.P.No.296 of 2016 has been filed by him and the very same
Tribunal has held that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle, the accident has taken place and the negligence is fixed only on
the driver of the offending vehicle. He further submitted that the amount
awarded by the Tribunal to the said injured has been settled by the
Insurance Company and no appeal has been preferred as against the said
award.
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Considering the fact that the very same Insurance Company has
accepted the findings rendered by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.296 of
2016, we are of the considered view that there cannot be divergent view
on the part of rash and negligence. Accordingly, the findings arrived by
the Tribunal with regard to the negligence fixed on the claimant is hereby
set aside. In the absence of any contra evidence by the Insurance
Company and not examination of driver of the offending vehicle, we are
of the considered view that the accident has taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly,
the entire liability is fixed on the offending vehicle which is insured with
the second respondent/Insurance Company and accordingly, the
respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
for the petitioner.
5. Based on Ex.P6, Ex.P9, Ex.P11, Ex.P12 and Ex.P20, the
medical expenses is hereby confirmed. The future medical expenses are
enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- and the award under the
head pain and sufferings is enhanced from Rs.2,00,000/- to
Rs.2,50,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under
4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the head loss of amenities and therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled
to a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the same. In all other aspects, the
compensation arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to the other heads, is
intact.
6. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.83 of
2017 is modified and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced from Rs.98,83,170/- to Rs.1,00,58,710/- which shall carry
interest at the rate of 7.5% per interest.
7. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs.
(ii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced from Rs.98,83,170/- to Rs.1,00,58,710/-.
(iii) The respondents are directed to deposit the entire
compensation of Rs.1,00,58,710/- (if not already deposited) together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till
the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.83 of 2017, dated
14.10.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief
Judicial Magistrate), Thoothukudi, within a period of eight weeks from
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is
permitted to withdraw the entire amount after following the due process
of law.
(T.K.R.,J) (P.B.B.,J)
04.10.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
ssb
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate),
Thoothukudi.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.
AND
P.B.BALAJI,J
ssb
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.23 of 2020
04.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
