Madras High Court

Baskaran vs R.Natarajan on 1 September, 2023

                                                                            C.M.A. No.442 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 01.09.2023

                                                         CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                              C.M.A.No.442 of 2023
                                            and CMP No.13427 of 2023
                  Baskaran                                  ...                        Appellant

                                                           Vs.
                  1.R.Natarajan

                  2.The Branch Manager
                  The United Insurance Company Ltd.,
                  No.2, Church Street,
                  Karaikal.                                        ...               Respondent


                  Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
                  Motor Vehicles Act       against the order dated 15.12.2022 made in MCOP
                  No.191 of 2017 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims
                  Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Karaikal.
                                        For Appellants     : Mr.L.Ramanathan for
                                                             Mr.T.Ananthasekar

                                        For Respondents : Mr.D.Bhaskaran for R2
                                                          R1 - Exparte



                  _____
                  1/10



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                C.M.A. No.442 of 2023



                                                      JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the dismissal

order dated 15.12.2022 made in MCOP No.191 of 2017 on the file of the

Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court,

Karaikal.

2. The appellant has filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum

of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the

accident that took place on 11.04.2017.

3. The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal.

4. The 2nd respondent filed a counter statement denying the averments

made in the claim petition stating that the 1 st respondent was not holding valid

driving licence at the time of accident; that there was no proper insurance

coverage for the alleged vehicle at the time of accident; that there is no nexus

between the alleged burning and damaging of the car and the injuries said to

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.442 of 2023

have been sustained by the appellant; that in any event, the compensation

claimed by the appellant is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim

petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and

marked Exs.P1 to P17 on his side. On the side of the 2nd respondent, RW1

was examined and Exs.X1 & X2 were marked. Disability Certificate issued

by the Medical Board, Govt. General Hospital, Karaikal was marked as C1.

6. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence, held

that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the first

respondent however dismissed the claim petition holding that the appellant

has failed to prove the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and that

as a Government servant, he is eligible to reimburse the medical expenses

from the Government. Aggrieved against the said award, the appellant has

preferred the instant appeal.

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.442 of 2023

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that

though the appellant had established that he sustained injuries in the road

accident and the Medical Board had assessed the disability as 46%, the

Tribunal had erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the

appellant is eligible to get reimbursement from the Government. The learned

counsel further submitted that the finding of the Tribunal is based on an

erroneous appreciation of the object and scope of the Motor Vehicles Act and

prayed for allowing the appeal by awarding compensation.

8. The first respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal and the

learned counsel sought permission of this court to dispense with notice to the

first respondent and made an endorsement to that effect. Hence, notice to the

first respondent is dispensed with.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, per contra

submitted that the first respondent had a valid insurance policy with the

second respondent; that however the Tribunal found that the first respondent

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.442 of 2023

did not possess a valid driving licence and therefore observed that if any

compensation is awarded, the second respondent can pay the same at the first

instance and recover the same from the second respondent; that the said

finding of the Tribunal is not erroneous and prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as

the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

11. The only question involved in the instant appeal is whether the

Tribunal was right in dismissing the claim petition.

12. It is seen from the award of the Tribunal that on the basis of the

oral and documentary evidence, it has held that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent and the appellant

sustained injuries due to the said accident. There is no dispute with regard to

the said fact. However, the first respondent did not possess valid driving

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.442 of 2023

licence at the time of accident but he had a valid insurance policy with the

second respondent. Therefore, this court is of the view that the second

respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the appellant at the first

instance and recover the same from the first respondent, for violation of policy

condition.

13. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is seen that the

appellant was examined by the Medical Board and Ex.C1/disability certificate

was issued stating that appellant sustained 46% disability observing

“segmental # © tibia c Valgue Fuee”. It is also not in dispute that the

appellant had produced medical bills, Ex.P11 series to the tune of Rs.36,884/-

and transport bills, Ex.P14 to the tune of Rs.4400/-. However, the Tribunal

had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that since the appellant was a

State Government Employee, he had not suffered any loss of income. This

Court is of the view that such an approach of the Tribunal is on erroneous

appreciation of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant is entitled to

compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident.

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.442 of 2023

14. The appellant has now filed a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of

CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC to receive the original document of Ex.P6

instead of xerox copy of same marked as Ex.P6 (discharge summary) before

the Tribunal. Being satisfied with the reasons given in the affidavit filed in

support of the petition, C.M.P.No.13427 of 2023 is allowed and the said

original document is marked as Ex.P6.

15. The appellant had not established that he suffered functional

disability and hence he is entitled to compensation by adopting percentage

method. The accident is of the year 2017 and the appellant is entitled to

Rs.5,000/- per percentage of disability. Thus, a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-

(Rs.5000 x 46) is awarded towards partial disability. He has also incurred

medical expenses to the tune of Rs.36,884/- which has been established

through Ex.P11 medical receipts and Rs.989/-, Ex.P13. Hence, a sum of

Rs.37,873/- is awarded towards medical expenses. The appellant had also

produced transport bills to the tune of Rs.4,400/- and he is entitled to a sum of

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.442 of 2023

Rs.4400/- towards transport expenses. Considering the nature of injuries,

period of treatment and the year of accident, this court awards a sum of

Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards attender charges,

Rs.20,000/- towards pain & sufferings and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of

amenities. Thus, the appellant is entitled to compensation under the following

heads.

                              S. Description                  Amount awarded by this
                              No                                   Court (Rs)
                              1.   Partial disability                       2,30,000/-
                              2.   Medical expenses                          37,873/-
                              3.   Transport expenses                          4,400/-
                              4.   Extra nourishment                         10,000/-
                              5.   Attender charges                            5,000/-
                              6.   Pain and Sufferings                       20,000/-
                              7.   Loss of amenities                         20,000/-
                                   Total                                    3,27,273/-

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

sum of Rs.3,27,273/- is awarded as compensation to the appellant together

with interest at 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if any) from

the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent / Insurance

_____

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No.442 of 2023

company is directed to deposit the award amount, now determined by this

Court along with interest and costs, within a period of six (6) weeks from the

date of a receipt of copy of this Judgment, at the first instance and recover the

same from the first respondent, owner of the vehicle. On such deposit, the

appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest and

costs. The appellant is directed to pay the necessary Court Fee, if any, on the