Madras High Court

K.Srinivasan vs S.Giri Babu on 2 April, 2024

Author: Abdul Quddhose

Bench: Abdul Quddhose

                                                                          C.M.A.No.1215 of 2019

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 02.04.2024

                                                         CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                                                 C.M.A.No.1215 of 2019

                     K.Srinivasan                                             .. Appellant

                                                              Vs


                     1.S.Giri Babu

                     2.The Manager,
                       The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                       No.6, Haddows Road,
                       Nungambakkam, Chennai – 6.                              .. Respondents

                                  Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 06.06.2013,
                     made in M.C.O.P.No.26 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident
                     Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Thiruvallur.


                                       For Appellant          : Mr.K.R.Ponnusamy

                                       For Respondents        : Mr.M.B.Raghavan




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/10
                                                                                C.M.A.No.1215 of 2019


                                                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated

06.06.2013, made in M.C.O.P.No.26 of 2009, on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Thiruvallur.

2. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the ground

that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is less. He has sought for

enhancement of another six lakhs in this appeal.

3. Earlier, this Court had directed the appellant to go for medical

examination before the Medical Board. As seen from the medical report

dated 23.01.2023, the appellant's disability was assessed at 82%.

4. The appellant had also produced medical bills, which were

allowed to be received by this Court on 22.12.2023 in C.M.P.No.14934

of 2023 in C.M.ANo.1215 of 2019 filed by the appellant. As per the said

bills, total value of the medical expenses incurred by the appellant

amounted to Rs.2,85,000/-. None of those bills were marked as exhibits

before the Tribunal.

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

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the monthly

income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,000/- is also too low. He would

contend that the Tribunal ought to have fixed his monthly income at

Rs.9,403/-, which was paid to the drivers at the relevant point of time.

6. However, the appellant himself, in his claim petition, has

disclosed that his monthly income is only Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, when

appellant has not produced any document before the Tribunal to show

that he was earning a sum of Rs.9,403/-, monthly income of the appellant

at the maximum can be fixed only at Rs.4,500/-. The date of the accident

is 14.09.2008. Considering the year of the accident, this Court is of the

considered view that monthly income fixed by the Tribunal for the

appellant at Rs.1,000/- is too low. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have

fixed monthly income at Rs.4,500/- as claimed by the appellant in his

claim petition.

7. As seen from the medical report dated 23.01.2023 submitted by

the Regional Medical Board, Rajiv Gandhi Government General

Hospital, Chennai, the appellant's disability has been assessed at 82%.

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

The medical report dated 23.01.2023, based on the medical examination

of the appellant held on 18.12.2023, reads as follows:-

Post Traumatic and Post Infective

Sequete of fracture left femur

Fracture left tibia with severe left knee

stiffness

Total disability 82%

8. Considering the permanent disability of the appellant assessed at

82%, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has

erroneously adopted percentage method, instead of adopting multiplier

method, for assessing compensation towards loss of earning capacity.

The finding of the Tribunal with regard to application of percentage

method is hereby set aside by holding that the Tribunal ought to have

adopted multiplier method while computing compensation towards loss

of earning capacity.

9. As observed earlier, the assessment of the monthly income of

the appellant by the Tribunal at Rs.1,000/- is too low and the said finding

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

has to be set aside by this Court. The appellant, in his claim petition as

well as in his oral evidence, has consistently stated that his monthly

income was only Rs.4,500/-. Eventhough no documentary evidence has

been placed on record by the appellant, this Court, after giving due

consideration to the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2008

and the appellant being a driver, is of the considered view that the

Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income of the appellant at

Rs.4,500/-, instead of Rs.1,000/-. At the time of accident, the appellant

was aged about 38 years. Therefore, multiplier 15 is adopted as per the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation ((2009) 6 SCC 121).

10. The Tribunal has also failed to award any compensation

towards future prospects to the appellant, which the appellant is entitled

as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 (16) SCC 680].

As per the said decision, the appellant is entitled to 40% towards future

prospects, since he was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and

he was working temporarily as a driver in the State Transport

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

Corporation. Accordingly, towards loss of earning capacity, a sum of

Rs.9,29,880/- (4500+1800 (40% of 4500) x 12 x 15 x 82% disability) is

awarded.

11. Eventhough the learned counsel for the appellant at this stage

sought for time to file an application seeking for reception of additional

documents, this Court is not entertaining such a request, since the appeal

is of the year 2019.

12. As stated above, this Court permitted reception of medical bills

paid by the appellant for his treatment as a result of the accident, in

addition to the medical bills already filed by the appellant before the

Tribunal, which was marked as Exs.P12 and P26. As seen from the

same, the appellant has incurred a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- in addition to the

medical bills already filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. No

contra evidence has also been placed by the Insurance Company to

disprove the said medical bills. Therefore, necessarily, a sum of

Rs.2,85,000/- incurred by the appellant in addition to the medical bills

already filed before the Tribunal has to be allowed.

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

13. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of

Rs.8,06,128/- as detailed hereunder:-

Loss of earning capacity -- Rs.1,00,000/-

(50% x Rs.2000) Loss of income (Rs.1000x 12) -- Rs.12000/- Original medical bills under Ex.P12 -- Rs.4,12,300/-

                                  Travel expenses                         -- Rs.1,12,700/-
                                  Auto charges                            -- Rs.55,400/-
                                  Medical bills under Ex.P26              -- Rs.13,728/-
                                  Pain and suffering                      -- Rs.50,000/-
                                  Amenities                               -- Rs.50,000/-

                                  Total                                   -- Rs.8,06,128/-

14. As seen from the above, the Tribunal has failed to award any

amount of compensation towards attender charges and extra

nourishment, which, it should have been awarded considering the nature

of injuries sustained by the appellant. Therefore, this Court awards a

sum of Rs.30,000/- each towards attender charges and extra nourishment.

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

15. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is re-worked in the following manner:-

Loss of earning capacity -- Rs.9,29,880/- Additional medical bills -- Rs.2,85,000/- Original medical bills under Ex.P12 -- Rs.4,12,300/-

                                  Travel expenses                     -- Rs.1,12,700/-
                                  Auto charges                        -- Rs.55,400/-
                                  Medical bills under Ex.P26          -- Rs.13,728/-
                                  Pain and suffering                  -- Rs.50,000/-
                                  Amenities                           -- Rs.50,000/-
                                  Attender charges                    -- Rs.30,000/-
                                  Extra nourishment                   -- Rs.30,000/-
                                  Total                               -- Rs.19,69,008/-

16. In the result, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is

modified by directing the second respondent Insurance company to

deposit the entire award amount of Rs.19,69,008/- to the credit of

M.C.O.P.No.26 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Sub-Court, Thiruvallur, less the amount already deposited if any, within

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The appellant is also entitled for interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of claim petition till the date of realization. On such deposit, the

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

claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount along with

accrued interest therein, by moving appropriate application. The

appellant is directed to pay additional court fees for the differential

amount within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment. In fine, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No

Costs.

02.04.2024 Index: yes/no Speaking/non-speaking Neutral citation: yes/no rkm

1. The Sub-Court, ( Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Thiruvallur.

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