Madras High Court
Parameshwari vs D.Murugan on 1 February, 2024
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
C.M.A.No.163 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.M.A.No.163 of 2024
Parameshwari
...Appellant
Vs
1.D.Murugan
2.M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
13A, Nethani Road, Manjakuppam,
Cuddalore.
... Respondents
Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree made in
MCOP.No.1376 of 2009 dated 13.12.2012 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.163 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.D.Baskar
For Respondent : Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan, for R2
JUDGMENT
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed to set aside the judgement
and decree dated 13.12.2012 in MCOP.No.1376 of 2009.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on 11.09.2003,
when the claimant was standing on the mud portion of the Thangalikuppam
Road, the 1st respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-31-A-6964 has
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to
the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Considering all the
aspects the Tribunal had awarded the following compensation:
S.No Particulars Compensation (Rs.)
1 Loss of Income 1,62,000
2 Medical Expenses 35,000
3 Pain and Sufferings 10,000
4 Transport Expenses 5,000
5 Extra Nourishment 5,000
Total 2,17,000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. He would also submit that the claimant had sustained severe fracture in
her left foot, due to which, she was not able to day to day activities. Further,
though the Medical Board had also assessed the disability of the injured at
32%,, the Tribunal has taken only 25% as functional disability to award
compensation by applying multiplier method, which is on the lower side.
Hence, he requests this Court to enhance the same.
4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
submit that considering the year of accident and nature of avocation, the
Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation and hence, he requests this
Court to confirm the same.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and also
perused the materials available on record.
6. In the present case, the accident was occurred in the year 2003 and at
the time of accident, the injured, who was aged about 23 years, was an
agricultural worker. In such view of the matter, the notional income of a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.3,000/- fixed by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable. Hence, the
same stands confirmed,
7. As far as compensation awarded towards disability is concerned, in
these type of cases, while applying the multiplier method, this Court will
normally take 1/3 of the percentage of disability to award compensation. In such
view of the matter, in the present case, it appears that the Medical Board had
assessed the disability of the injured at 32% and the Tribunal had taken the
functional disability at 25%, which is almost 3/4th of the disability assessed by
the Medical Board and hence, the same is very just and reasonable as far as the
claimant is concerned.
8. Further, the compensation awarded under the other heads are also
appears to be just and reasonable. However, it appears that no amount has been
awarded towards future medical expenses. Since the left foot of the injured was
fractured and a steel plate has been fixed and the same has to be removed, this
Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs15,000/- towards future medical
expenses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as
follows:
S.No Particulars Compensation Compensation
awarded by the awarded by
Tribunal this Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
1 Loss of Income 1,62,000 1,62,000
2 Medical Expenses 35,000 35,000
3 Pain and Sufferings 10,000 10,000
4 Transport Expenses 5,000 5,000
5 Extra Nourishment 5,000 5,000
6 Future Medical Expenses Nil 15,000
7 Total 2,17,000 2,32,000
10. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is modified as a sum
of Rs.2,32,000/-. Accordingly, the award amount stands enhanced from a sum
of Rs.2,17,000/- to Rs.2,32,000/-. In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal
stands confirmed.
11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the 2nd respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,32,000/- along with
interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of
MCOP.No.1376 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. Further, the claimant shall pay necessary
Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. Thereafter, the Tribunal is
directed to immediately transfer the entire amount to the bank accounts of the
claimant by way of RTGS, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of deposit
and from the date of receipt of the Bank details obtained for the claimant or
application for withdrawal from the claimant, whichever is earlier. No costs.
01.02.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
nsa
To:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.
nsa
01.02.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
