Madras High Court
Karthick vs Thennarassan on 8 August, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.533 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.533 of 2024
Karthick
S/o.Krishnaswamy ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Thennarassan
S/o.Sababathi
2.The Branch Manager,
The New India Insurance Company Limited,
No.2889, Sethu Amirtham Towers,
Srinivasam Pillai Road,
Thanjavur. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed
in M.C.O.P.No.51 of 2020 dated 29.07.2021 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Subordinate Court), Thanjavur.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian
For R2 : Mr.R.Ramadurai
*****
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 8
C.M.A.(MD) No.533 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal vide its Judgment and Decree dated 29.07.2021 passed in
M.C.O.P.No.51 of 2020, the claimant has filed the instant appeal.
2. The appellant/claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.
51 of 2020 stating that while he was riding a two wheeler bearing
Registration No.TN-81-D-2638, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-51-
E-2921 insured with the second respondent Insurance Company and
owned by the first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and
collided with the two wheeler from behind, as a result of which, the
appellant/claimant suffered fractures on his right hand, right elbow, index
finger of his right hand and all over the body and therefore suffered
permanent disability.
3. The first respondent had remained exparte before the Tribunal.
The second respondent Insurance Company had opposed the claim
petition stating that the accident took place due to the negligence of the
appellant/claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The appellant/claimant had himself examined as P.W.1 and the
Doctor who treated him, as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. On the side
of the second respondent Insurance Company, Ex.R1 was marked.
5. After taking into consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal had assessed the functional disability of the
appellant at 5% and adopted the multiplier method and awarded a total
compensation of Rs.1,91,240/- to the appellant/claimant.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the
Doctor who was examined as P.W.2 had assessed the functional disability
of the appellant/claimant at 40% and deposed in his evidence that the
disability is permanent in nature and hence the Tribunal ought to have
assessed the functional disability at 40% instead of 5%. The learned
counsel for the appellant/claimant further submitted that the
appellant/claimant is unable to perform his job to his full capacity due to
the accident.
7. The learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance
Company, per contra, submitted that since the appellant/claimant
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
continues to work, the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier
method and ought to have awarded the compensation on percentage basis.
He further submitted that in any case, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable and therefore, no interference calls for.
8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions.
9. The only question involved in the instant appeal is whether the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
10. Admittedly, the second respondent has not challenged the award
of the Tribunal adopting the multiplier method while calculating
compensation to the appellant/claimant. The Tribunal had held that
considering the nature of the job performed by the appellant/claimant and
the injuries sustained by him, the appellant/claimant suffered a functional
disability of 5%.
11. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the
appellant which is enumerated by P.W.2 Doctor, the surgery and the
treatment taken by him earlier, and also considering the fact that the P.W.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 Doctor has deposed that the disability is permanent in nature, this Court
is of the view that it would be just and reasonable to fix the functional
disability at 10% instead of 5%.
12. The award under the other heads is just and reasonable and
therefore no interference calls for.
13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of
'loss of income due to the disability' is modified as follows:-
Annual Income of the
appellant/claimant (Rs.8,000/- x 12) : Rs.96,000/-
Add: Future Prospects (40%)
(Rs.96,000/- x 40/100) : Rs.38,400/-
----------------
Total annual income of the
appellant/claimant : Rs.1,34,400/-
Loss of annual income due to
disability (10%)
(Rs.1,34,000/- x 10/100) : Rs.13,400/-
Multiplier (appellant's age 29) - 17
Loss of future income due to the disability
(Rs.13,400/- x 17) - Rs.2,28,480/-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. Therefore, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced to Rs.3,05,480/- as follows:-
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed,
the Tribunal this Court enhanced or
granted
1 Loss of income due to the
disability Rs.1,14,240/- Rs.2,28,480/- Enhanced
2 Loss of income during
treatment Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 8,000/- Confirmed
3 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Confirmed
4 Attendant charges Rs. 9,000/- Rs. 9,000/- Confirmed
5 Pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Confirmed
6 Conveyance charges Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Confirmed
7 Special diet Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Confirmed
Enhanced by
Total Rs.1,91,240/- Rs.3,05,480/- Rs.1,14,240/-
15. The second respondent Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the modified amount of Rs.3,05,480/- together with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of
realization and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a
period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw
the same together with interest and costs, less the amount already
withdrawn, if any, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal. The
appellant/claimant is directed to pay the necessary court fee, if any, on the
enhanced amount.
17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs.
08.08.2024
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
JEN
Copy To:
The Special Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Thanjavur.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN
08.08.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
