Madras High Court
Rishi @ Rishikesavan vs J.H.Kumar on 26 September, 2023
C.M.A.No.1284 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.1284 of 2022
Rishi @ Rishikesavan ...
Appellant
Vs.
1.J.H.Kumar
2.The United India Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Cuddalore.
3.N.Subramaniyan
4.The United India Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
B.O.II, Oriental Complex,
No.77, Arunachala Asari Street,
Salem – 1.
5.S.Lakshmi ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2021 in
M.C.O.P.No.493/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Additional Special Judge) Krishnagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A.No.1284 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondents : R1 & R5 – Dispense with
R3 - Died
Mr.C.Paranthaman for R2 & R4
Mr.S.Arunkumar for R6
JUDGMENT
The claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement
of compensation.
2.The claimant/appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal
stating that on 01.04.2002, while he was travelling in a car, the lorry
belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent hit
the car in which the appellant travelled and as a result of which, the car
turned to the left and another lorry driven by the third respondent herein
had hit the car as a result of the which, the appellant sustained grievous
injuries.
3.The respondents 1, 3 and 5 remained exparte before the Tribunal.
4.The respondents 2 and 4 filed a counter stating that the accident
took place only due to the negligence of the appellant and hence they are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1284 of 2022
liable to pay the compensation. The sixth respondent/ insurer of the car
owned by the appellant stating that the accident took place only due to the
negligence of the two lorry drivers insured with the second and fourth
respondents herein.
5.The Tribunal after taking into consideration oral and documentary
evidence held that the accident took place only due to the negligence of both
the lorry drivers and fixed 50% contributory negligence on both of them and
directed the second and fourth respondents to pay a compensation of
Rs.4,11,920/- jointly.
6.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award of the
Tribunal is meagre considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
appellant; that the appellant is an actor and due to facial injuries, he had
suffered loss of income and therefore prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
7.The learned counsel for the second and fourth respondent per
contra submitted that the appellant had neither proved the avocation nor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1284 of 2022
income and hence, the Tribunal was right in awarding compensation in a
percentage method and Rs.3,000/- for computing the compensation under
the head loss of income.
8.Learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that the award
of the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned
counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 and the learned counsel for the sixth
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
10.The only question involved in this appeal is whether the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
11.On perusal of records, it is seen that the appellant examined
himself as P.W.1 and deposed before the Tribunal that he was an actor and
was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. However, no documentary proof was
filed before the Tribunal to establish the income.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1284 of 2022
12.The appellant had suffered the following injuries:
(i).Left front tempro subdural haematoma and subarachnoid
haemorrhage
(ii).Fracture Ribs 5, 6, 7, 8 Right side
(iii).Fracture right pubic rami
13.Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant, this Court is of
the view that the compensation under the head loss of amenities could be
enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded a compensation under
the head pain and suffering at Rs.50,000/- which is just and reasonable.
The award under the head transport expenses can be enhanced to
Rs.15,000/-. The award of the Tribunal by adopting percentage method
cannot be faulted since the appellant has not established any functional
disability due to the accident.
14.Considering the injuries, the Tribunal found that the appellant
could not have pursued his avocation for a period of six months. However,
the Tribunal fixed the notional income as Rs.3,000/-. Since the accident is
of the year 2002 and considering the fact that the appellant is an actor, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1284 of 2022
Court is of the view that the notional income can be fixed at Rs.5,000/- per
month and hence, the award under the head loss of income during the
period of treatment is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Thus, the award is modified
as follows:
Amount Amount
S.No. Heads awarded by awarded by Award amount
the Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(in Rs.) (in Rs.) reduced or
confirmed
1 Transport Expenses 10,000/- 15,000/- Enhanced
2 Nutrition and Attender 25,000/- 25,000/- Confirmed
Expenses
3 Pain and Suffering 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed
4 Amenities 10,000/- 50,000/- Enhanced
5 Partial permanent Loss of 18,000/- 30,000/- Enhanced
Income for 6 months
6 Damage to Cloth 1,000/- 1,000/- Confirmed
7 40% disability calculating 1,20,000/- 1,20,000/- Confirmed
Rs.3,000/- per percentage
8 Medical Bills 1,77,920.20 1,77,920.20 Confirmed
Total 4,11,920/- 4,68,920/- Enhanced by
by Rs.57,000/-
15.With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.4,11,920/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.4,68,920/- together with interest at
7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if any) from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
16.The respondents 2 and 4 are directed to deposit the award amount,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1284 of 2022
now determined by this Court, less the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of a receipt of a copy of this
judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the
award amount along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount
if any, already withdrawn. The appellant is directed to pay the necessary
Court Fee, if any, on the enhanced award amount. No costs.
26.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
pam
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Additional Special Judge) Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1284 of 2022
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
pam
C.M.A.No.1284 of 2022
26.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
