Madras High Court
M.Girija vs Indus Pharmaceuticals on 4 June, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
C.M.A.No.1964 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.06.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.1964 of 2021
Jyothi Kumar (since deceased)
1.M.Girija
2.M.Janani
3.M.Arjun
4.Srikumari Kaimal ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Indus Pharmaceuticals
Indus House, New No.24/1,
Old No.48, Subramanian Street,
Abbiramapuram, Chennai - 600 018.
2.Royal Sundaram Alliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Subramaniam Buildings, No.1,
Club House Road, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 2. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated
13.12.2019 made in M.C.O.P. No.4120 of 2016 on the file of the Motor
Vehicle Claims Tribunal / (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents
Claims Petitions), Small Causes Court, Chennai.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1964 of 2021
For Appellants : Ms.Ramya V.Rao
For Respondents : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
for R2
No appearance for R1
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of
compensation. The Tribunal under the impugned award has directed the
second respondent / Insurance Company to pay the appellants / claimants a
compensation of Rs.2,59,500/- for the death of the deceased as a result of an
accident caused by a vehicle insured with the second respondent as follows:
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
in Rs.
Loss of Income 40,000
Medical Expenses 2,00,470
Transportation 5,000
Extra Nourishment 10,000
Attender Charges 4,000
Total 2,59,470
Rounded Off to 2,59,500
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. According to the appellants / claimants, the compensation
determined by the Tribunal is not a just compensation and it has to be
enhanced. The accident happened on 29.03.2016. The deceased sustained
femur bone fracture and one surgery was performed on him. He was
hospitalized for a period of 15 days i.e., from 14.04.2016 to 29.04.2016. The
nature of injuries sustained by the deceased has not been disputed by the
respondents as seen from the evidence available on record before the
Tribunal. While the deceased was alive, the claim petition was filed, seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained by him. During the pendency of the
claim petition, he died. The deceased suffered from chronic kidney disease
and coronary artery disease and on that ground, the Tribunal has held that
he did not die as a result of an accident caused by a vehicle insured with the
second respondent. However, the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased
as a result of the accident caused by a vehicle insured with the second
respondent has not been disputed by the second respondent. Admittedly, the
deceased was hospitalized for a period of 15 days i.e., from 14.04.2016 to
29.04.2016 and he underwent a surgery due to the femur bone fracture
sustained by him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The deceased in his claim petition, filed when he was alive, had
disclosed that he was a photographer. The Tribunal has determined his
notional monthly income at Rs.10,000/- and has awarded loss of income to
him for a period of four months as a result of the injuries sustained by him
due to an accident caused by a vehicle insured with the second respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that
only based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has rightly
determined the loss of income for the deceased at four months and has
rightly awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of income
calculated at Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of four months. However,
this Court is of the considered view that as a photographer, that too when he
has sustained grievous injuries viz., femur bone fracture and was also
hospitalized for a period of 15 days i.e., from 14.04.2016 to 29.04.2016, the
loss of income assessed by the Tribunal for the period of four months is too
low and it has to be enhanced.
5. This Court, after giving due consideration to the evidence available
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on record and after giving due consideration to the age of the deceased as
well as his avocation and the seriousness of the injury, is of the considered
view that the loss of income will have to be calculated for a period of eight
months instead of four months erroneously determined by the Tribunal.
However, the notional monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/-
is a correct assessment. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of
income is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.80,000/- at Rs.10,000/- per
month for a period of eight months.
6. In so far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
medical expenses at Rs.2,00,470/- is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly
awarded the said sum based on the medical bills produced by the appellants
/ claimants. There is no question of interference by this Court with regard to
the said claim.
7. In so far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
transportation and attender charges are concerned, this Court is of the
considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
transportation at Rs.5,000/- and towards attender charges at Rs.4,000/- are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
low and they have to be enhanced, considering the nature of injuries
sustained by the deceased as well as the period of his hospitalization. This
Court enhances the compensation towards transportation and attender
charges from Rs.5,000/- and Rs.4,000/- to Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/-
respectively.
8. In so far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
extra nourishment charges at Rs.10,000/- is concerned, this Court is of the
considered view that the same is a just compensation and there is no scope
for any further interference by this Court.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation payable by the
respondents is re-worked in the following manner:
Heads Amount awarded by the Amount awarded by this
Tribunal in Rs. Court in Rs.
Loss of Income 40,000 80,000
Medical Expenses 2,00,470 2,00,470
Transportation 5,000 15,000
Extra Nourishment 10,000 10,000
Attender Charges 4,000 15,000
Total 2,59,470 3,20,470
Rounded Off to 2,59,500 3,20,500
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed
by enhancing the award amount from Rs.2,59,500/- to Rs.3,20,500/-. The
second respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced
award amount of Rs.3,20,500/-, after deducting the amount already
deposited, if any, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit and cost to the credit of
M.C.O.P. No.4120 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Claims
Tribunal / (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Petitions),
Small Causes Court, Chennai, within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
11. The appellants / claimants are permitted to withdraw the said
amount, once it is deposited by the second respondent/Insurance Company,
by filing an appropriate application. On such application being made, the
Tribunal shall transfer the amount lying to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.4120
of 2016 to the bank account of the appellants directly through RTGS /
NEFT, within a period of one week thereafter. No costs.
04.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No
ab
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.,
ab
To
1. The Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal / (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor
Accidents Claims Petitions), Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. The Section officer, Record Section, High Court of Madras.
04.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
