Madras High Court
S.Susila vs E.Ramesh on 29 September, 2023
C.M.A.No.795 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.795 of 2023
E.Singaravelan (Since Deceased)
1.S.Susila
2.S.Yuvaraj
3.S.Saravanan
4. S.Radhika
...Appellants/Petitioners
Vs.
1.E.Ramesh,
2.United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.134, Silingi Buildings,
Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.
...Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order made in M.C.O.P.No.3093 of
2020, dated 26.09.2022, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in
the II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
_____
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.795 of 2023
For Appellants : Mr.K.Suryanarayanan
For Respondents : R1 - Notice dispensed with
R2 – Mrs.R.Srividhya
JUDGMENT
The claimants have preferred the instant appeal seeking enhancement
of compensation.
2. One E.Singaravelan, was injured in the accident, and filed a claim
petition. He subsequently died during the pendency of the claim petition.
Since he was in a vegetative state, the claim petition was filed through his
wife, who is the first appellant herein. On his death, the appellants 1 to 4 were
impleaded as petitioners in the claim petition.
3. It is the case of the appellants that on 28.09.2020 at about 15.45
hours, when the said Singaravelan was walking on the road, a
motor-cycle, bearing Reg.No.TN-21-BL-1455 belonging to the first
respondent and insured with the second respondent, came in a rash and
negligent manner and hit him, as a result of which he sustained grievous
injuries and thereafter, he succumbed to the injuries on 13.07.2021.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.795 of 2023
4. The first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
5. The second respondent/insurance company filed a counter stating
that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the deceased;
that the rider of the two wheeler did not have a valid driving license at the
time of the accident; that there is no nexus between the accident and the
death; that the deceased did not take proper treatment and therefore, the
second respondent was not liable to pay compensation; and that in any case,
the compensation claimed was excessive.
6. Before the Tribunal, the appellants examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and
marked twenty documents as Exs.P1 to P.20. The second respondent neither
examined any witness nor marked any document.
7. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident took place due to the negligence
of the rider of the two wheeler; and that the appellants have established the
nexus between the accident and the death and directed the second respondent
to pay a sum of Rs.9,65,000/- as compensation to the appellants.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.795 of 2023
had erroneously rejected the medical bills produced on the side of the
appellants namely Exs.P4, P.6 and P.18. The learned counsel further
submitted that the Tribunal had not assigned any reason for rejecting the said
medical bills which were issued by the Hospital, which treated the deceased;
that the total expenses incurred by the deceased for the treatment, as per three
medical bills, was Rs.14,36,436/- and that the said amount has to be awarded
as compensation under the head “Medical Expenses”.
9. Since the first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal,
the learned counsel for the appellants made an endorsement to dispense with
notice to the first respondent. Hence, notice to the first respondent is
dispensed with.
10. The learned counsel for the second respondent/insurance company
fairly submitted that the Medical Bills submitted by the appellants before the
Tribunal are genuine.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the second
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.795 of 2023
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
12. The only question involved in the instant appeal is whether the
appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.14,36,500/- under the head “Medical
Expenses”?
13. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the deceased had taken
treatment in a private hospital which had issued three Medical Bills which
were marked as Exs.P4, P6 and P18. It can be seen from the above three
exhibits that the total expenses incurred by the deceased for the treatment was
Rs.14,36,500/-. Since this fact is not disputed by the second respondent,
the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the Medical Bills while computing the
compensation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellants are
entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.14,36,500/- under the head
“Medical Expenses”.
14. The award under the other heads is just and reasonable and hence,
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.795 of 2023
the same is confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced from Rs.9,65,000/- to Rs.24,01,500/-. The break-up is as follows:-
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by this confirmed or
Tribunal Court (Rs) enhanced or
(Rs) granted
1. Loss of 7,56,000/- 7,56,000/- Confirmed
Dependency
2. Loss of 1,76,000/- 1,76,000/- Confirmed
Consortium
3. Loss of Estate 16,500/- 16,500/- Confirmed
4. Funeral 16,500/- 16,500/- Confirmed
Expenses
5. Medical --- 14,36,500/- Granted
Expenses
Total Rs.9,65,000/- Rs.24,01,500/- Enhanced
by
Rs.14,36,500/-
15. With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.9,45,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.24,01,500/- 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 second respondent/Insurance Company is
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.795 of 2023
directed to deposit the award amount, 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 copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the first appellant
is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.16,51,500/- and the appellants 2 to 4 are
permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- each, along with proportionate
interest and costs, after adjusting the amount if any, already withdrawn.
The appellants are directed to pay the necessary Court Fee, if any, on the
enhanced award amount. No costs.
29.09.2023
dk
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Copy to:-
1.The II Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
dk
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.795 of 2023
C.M.A. No. 795 of 2023
29.09.2023
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
