Madras High Court

Ammayee Ammal vs D. Manonmani on 3 June, 2024

Author: Abdul Quddhose

Bench: Abdul Quddhose

                                                                           C.M.A. No.1728 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 03.06.2024

                                                    CORAM:

                                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                                             C.M.A. No.1728 of 2022


                     Ammayee Ammal                                 .... Appellant
                                              vs.

                     1. D. Manonmani

                     2. The General Manager,
                     IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.,
                     No.306A, 1st Floor,
                     Katpadi Main Road,
                     Viruthampattu,
                     Melur.                                .... Respondents

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Fair and Final Order dated 05.07.2013 in
                     M.C.O.P. No.156 of 2011 on the file of the learned Motor Accident
                     Claims Tribunal and the District Judge, Thiruvannamalai.

                     For Appellant                       :     Mr.J. Lenin
                     For Respondents                     :     R1 – No appearance
                                                               Mr.M. Jayaraj for R2




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/9
                                                                                  C.M.A. No.1728 of 2022

                                                          JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of

compensation.

2. Heard Mr.J. Lenin, learned counsel for the appellant / claimant

and Mr.Jayaraj, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / Insurance

Company.

3. The Tribunal under the impugned award has directed the 2 nd

respondent / Insurance Company to pay the appellant / claimant a

compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant

as a result of an accident caused by a vehicle owned by the 1 st respondent

and insured with the 2nd respondent. The details of the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant are as follows:

                                               Heads               Amount awarded
                                                                    by the Tribunal
                                                                         (Rs.)
                                   Permanent Disability @ 80%                  80000
                                   Pain and sufferings                         25000
                                   Nutrition                                   10000
                                   Attender charges                             5000
                                   Damages to clothes                           2000

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




                                               Heads               Amount awarded
                                                                    by the Tribunal
                                                                         (Rs.)
                                   Transportation                               5000
                                   Loss of amenities                           10000
                                   Medical expenses                             3000
                                   Total                                     140000

4. Admittedly one of the legs of the appellant / claimant has been

amputated due to the accident caused by a vehicle insured with the 2 nd

respondent. The findings with regard to the negligence has attained

finality as no appeal has been filed by the respondents. The only

question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just compensation or not and

whether the appellant / claimant is entitled for enhancement of

compensation. The appellant / claimant was a Labourer at the time of the

accident which happened in the year 2011. The appellant was admittedly

aged more than 60 years at the time of the accident. No documentary

evidence has been produced by the appellant / claimant before the

Tribunal to prove her age. The 2nd respondent has also contended that the

appellant / claimant is a very old lady and therefore the question of

granting compensation towards loss of earning capacity does not arise. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Tribunal after giving due consideration to the nature of the avocation

of the appellant / claimant, who admittedly is an agricultural labourer and

after giving due consideration to the age of the appellant / claimant has

rightly not adopted the multiplier method as the appellant / claimant

would not have suffered any loss of earning capacity on account of the

injuries and further there is also no documentary evidence placed on

record by the appellant / claimant to prove the same. However, since the

appellant / claimant had to amputate her one leg on account of the

injuries sustained by her due to the accident caused by a vehicle insured

with the 2nd respondent, necessarily, the quantum of compensation to be

awarded to the appellant / claimant must be adequate and should be a just

compensation. The Tribunal under the impugned award has given a

correct finding that the appellant / claimant is not entitled for loss of

earning capacity by the adoption of the multiplier method and has also

rightly awarded compensation on percentage basis. This Court is of the

considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under

various other heads and the calculation of disability compensation at

Rs.1,000/- per percentage of disability is not correct. The accident

happened in the year 2011. For an accident, which admittedly happened

in the year 2011, the disability compensation to be awarded on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

percentage basis has to be calculated at Rs.2,500/- per percentage of

disability. The Tribunal under the impugned award has rightly assessed

the disability of the appellant / claimant at 80% after giving due

consideration to the nature of the avocation, the age of the appellant /

claimant and the disability certificate. However, the Tribunal ought to

have calculated the disability compensation of the appellant / claimant at

Rs.2,500/- per percentage of disability instead of erroneously calculating

the disability compensation at Rs.1,000/- per percentage of disability,

after giving due consideration to the year of the accident, which

admittedly happened in the year 2011. This Court therefore enhances the

disability compensation from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- by assessing

the disability compensation at Rs.2,500/- per percentage of disability for

the 80% disability suffered by the appellant / claimant.

5. The Tribunal has also awarded a lesser compensation towards

pain and suffering, attender charges and loss of amenities. The Tribunal

ought to have given due consideration to the fact that the appellant /

claimant had to get one of her legs amputated due to the injuries

sustained by her as a result of the accident caused by a vehicle insured

with the 2nd respondent. Therefore, this Court enhances the

compensation awarded to the appellant towards pain and suffering from https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-; towards attender charges from Rs.5,000/- to

Rs.25,000/- and towards loss of amenities from Rs.10,000/- to

Rs.25,000/- respectively. The quantum of compensation towards the

aforesaid heads are determined by this Court after giving due

consideration to the nature of the avocation of the appellant / claimant as

well as her age which is more than 60 years, even according to the

appellant / claimant. Insofar as the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under various other heads are concerned, they do not require

any interference from this Court.

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

Tribunal is re-worked in the following manner :-

                                      Heads        Amount Awarded by Amount Awarded
                                                   the Tribunal in Rs. by this Court in Rs.
                           Permanent                           80,000             2,00,000
                           Disability @ 80%                                              *
                           *Rs.2,500/- x 80%
                           Pain and suffering                  25,000               50,000
                           Nutrition                           10,000               10,000
                           Attender charges                      5,000              25,000
                           Damages to clothes                    2,000               2,000
                           Transportation                        5,000               5,000
                           Loss of amenities                   10,000               25,000
                           Medical expenses                      3,000               3,000

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




                                       Heads          Amount Awarded by Amount Awarded
                                                      the Tribunal in Rs. by this Court in Rs.
                           Total                                1,40,000             3,20,000

7. In the result, this appeal stands partly allowed by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.1,40,000/- to Rs.3,20,000/-. No Costs.

8. The 2nd respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the amount awarded by this Court, after deducting the amount already

deposited if any, together with interest and costs to the credit of

M.C.O.P.No. 156 of 2011, within a period of four weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the

Tribunal shall transfer the award amount to the bank account of the

appellant / claimant through RTGS within a period of two weeks

thereafter.

9. In view of the fact that this appeal has been filed only in the year

2019 and was numbered in the year 2022, despite the fact that the award