Madras High Court
Vigneshwaran vs K.T. Benny on 9 August, 2024
Author: R. Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
C.M.A.No.1102 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.1102 of 2023
Vigneshwaran ... Appellant
..Vs..
1. K.T. Benny
2. Arun
3. National Insurance Company Limited,
215, N.H. Road, Opposite Railway Station,
Railway Station, Coimbatore,
Tamil Nadu. ...Respondents
The Respondents 1 & 2 remained ex parte before Tribunal, hence notice
may be dispensed with for the Respondents 1 and 2 in this Appeal.
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur in M.C.O.P.No.1804 of 2016 dated
02.11.2022.
For Appellant : Mr.Ma.P. Thangavel.
R1 & R2 : No appearance
For R3 : Mrs.N.B. Surekha
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1102 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1804 of 2016 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur, and he filed
the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him,
in a road accident that took place on 14.05.2016.
2. The brief case of the appellant/claimant is as follows:
2.1. On 14.05.2016, at about 2.00 hours, the appellant/claimant was
travelling in a Chevorlet car bearing Registration No.TN 39 BM 3693 on
Coimbatore - Palakad Main Road. When he was nearing Vallaiyar Check
Post, a speeding bus bearing Registration No.KL 64 B 3232, belonging to
the second respondent and driven by the first respondent, hit the car in
which the claimant was travelling, as a result of which, he sustained
injuries on his left forearm and abrasions all over his body. He was
immediately rushed to the Management Samithi District Hospital and
after getting first Aid, he got himself admitted in L.G. Medical Centre,
Tiruppur, as an inpatient from 18.05.2016 to 22.05.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.2. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.KL 64 B 3232 was the cause
of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the third
respondent, the National Insurance Company Limited, Coimbatore, the
owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
to him.
3. In the Tribunal, the first and second respondents (driver and
the owner of the offending vehicle) remained absent and were set ex
parte. The third respondent resisted the claim petition on all the grounds
available to the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, held
that the owner and the insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- together with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum to the appellant/claimant from the date of the
petition till the date of realisation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6. Heard Mr.Ma.P. Thangavel, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mrs. N.B. Surekha, learned counsel for the third respondent.
7. Mr.Ma.P. Thangavel, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that though the Medical Board assessed the Partial Permanent
Disability of the claimant as 45%, the Tribunal had reduced it to 5%
without any basis and therefore, the amount under the head of 'Partial
Permanent Disability' should be enhanced. His further contention is that
the claimant was working as a Heavy duty Motor vehicle driver and was
earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his notional
monthly income as Rs.10,000/-, which is on the lower side. He also
contended that the Tribunal had refused to accept the medical bills
amounting to Rs.70,812/- on the ground that the father's name of the
claimant was wrongly indicated in the same. According to him, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tribunal had awarded meagre amounts under the other heads and
therefore sought for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, Mrs.N.B. Surekha, learned counsel appearing for
the third respondent/Insurance Company contended that the Medical
Board had not issued the disability certificate as per the guidelines of the
Government of India and in compliance of the directions of this Court in
Arockiadoss vs. Syed Ibrahim 2. United India Insurance reported in
2022 (2) TN MAC 229. The Tribunal had infact summoned the doctor
and examined him and considering his evidence and the extract of the
Register maintained by the Medical Board (Ex.C1), rightly assessed the
partial permanent disability as 5% and therefore, there is no reason for
this Court to enhance it to 50%. Her another contention is that the
Tribunal had properly analysed the evidence on record and had granted
just compensation and therefore the same need not be disturbed.
9. A perusal of the Disability Certificate shows that it has not
been issued as per the guidelines of the Government of India and
complying with the directions of this Court in Arockiadoss vs. Syed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ibrahim 2. United India Insurance (cited supra). The doctor who issued
the Disability Certificate was examined as P.W.2 before the Tribunal. He
produced the extract of the Register maintained by the Medical Board and
the same was marked as Ex.C1. In Ex.C1, the Partial Permanent
Disability was shown as 5%. However in the last line it was mentioned as
"Ortho 5%, Neuro 45%, Total 50%". The Medical Board did not mention
that various tests conducted by them to show that neurological disability
is 45%. Moreover, the discharge summary (Ex.P3) shows that the
claimant had taken treatment only for comminuted fracture and not for
any neurological problem. The neurological disability seems to have
been added subsequently without any basis. Therefore, the percentage
of disability fixed by the Tribunal at 5% is perfectly in order.
9.1. The Tribunal did not add the medical bills amounting to
Rs.70,812/- on the ground that the father's name of the claimant was
wrongly indicated. A perusal of the Discharge summary (Ex.P3) shows
that an operation was performed in L.G Hospital and the claimant was
treated as an inpatient for four days. In the circumstances the medical
bills adduced by the claimant has to be taken into consideration while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
computing the compensation payable to him. The ground that father's
name does not match is not acceptable. Accordingly, as per the medical
bills, a sum of Rs.70,812/- has to be added.
9.2. According to the claimant he is a Heavy duty Motor
vehicle driver earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. However, he did
not adduce any documentary evidence to show that he was actually
earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. In the circumstances, the
notional income of the claimant can be fixed as Rs.12,000/- per month.
Since he suffered comminuted fracture in his left fore arm, he would have
been out of action for atleast four months and therefore, awarding a sum
of Rs.48,000/- (12,000 x 4) towards loss of income for four months to the
claimant would meet the ends of justice. The following tabular column
would show the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the enhanced
amount awarded by this Court under various heads.
S.No Heads Amount awarded by Amount awarded
Tribunal by this Court
(Rs) (Rs)
1. Loss of income 30,000/- 48,000/-
(Rs.10,000/- x 3 (Rs.12,000/- x 4
months months)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No Heads Amount awarded by Amount awarded
Tribunal by this Court
(Rs) (Rs)
2. Partial Permanent 25,000/- 25,000/-
Disability
3. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/-
4. Extra nourishment 15,000/- 20,000/-
5. Attender's charges 10,000/- 10,000/-
6. Damage to clothes 5,000/- 5,000/-
7. Pain and sufferings 50,000/- 75,0000/-
8. Medical Expenses - 70,812/-
TOTAL 1,45,000/- 2,63,812/-
10. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced from Rs.1,45,000/- to Rs.2,63,812/- which would carry interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
11. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
(ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced
from Rs.1,45,000/- to Rs.2,63,812/-.
(iii) The appellant / claimant is directed to pay the court fee for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the enhanced compensation amount, if any, and the Registry is directed to
draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee.
(iv) The third respondent, the National Insurance Company
Limited, Coimbatore, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount i.e., Rs.2,63,812/- (less the amount already deposited) together
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition
till the date of deposit to the credit of MCOP.No.1804 of 2016 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) On such deposit being made, the appellant / claimant is at
liberty to withdraw the same after following due process of law.
09.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
bga
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirupur.
2. National Insurance Company Limited,
215, N.H. Road, Opposite Railway Station,
Railway Station, Coimbatore,
Tamil Nadu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. HEMALATHA, J.
bga
09.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
