Madras High Court
Ramesh Babu vs Marimuthu on 23 October, 2024
Author: R. Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
C.M.A.No.1565 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
CMA.No.1565 of 2019
Ramesh Babu ...Appellant
.Vs.
1. Marimuthu
2. The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
52, General Muthiah Mudali Street,
Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 03.09.2010 in
M.C.O.P.46 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvallur.
For Appellant : Mr.E.Ashok Kumar
for Mr.D.Baskar
For R2 : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1565 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.46 of 2009 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvallur. He filed the claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road
accident that took place on 19.04.2008.
2. The brief case of the claimant is as follows:
On 19.04.2008, the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing
Registration Number TN-20-AB-2054 on Thirumangalam east main road
and at about 9.00 a.m., a speeding car bearing Registration Number TN-02-
AA-1307 hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, the claimant sustained
injuries all over his body and was admitted in the hospital.
3. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the car bearing Registration Number TN-02-AA-1307 was the
cause of the accident and that since the said car was insured with the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the owner of the
car and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
him.
4. In the Tribunal, the owner of the car remained absent and was
set ex parte. The second respondent, the United India Insurance Company
Limited contested the claim petition on all the grounds available to the
insurer under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. The Tribunal, vide its orders dated 03.09.2010, fastened
negligence on the part of the driver of the car and further held that the
owner of the car and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant (claimant) together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of realisation.
6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Heard Mr.E.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel for the second respondent.
8. Mr.E.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not
commensurate with the injuries sustained by the claimant. He therefore,
prayed for enhancement of compensation.
9. Per contra Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel appearing
for the second respondent contended that the Award passed by the Tribunal
is based on the well laid principles of law which were in vogue at the time
of passing of the order and therefore, the same need not be disturbed at this
stage.
10. It is seen from the records that the claimant had sustained a
fracture on his left femur. Dr.Thiyagarajan (P.W.2) assessed the partial
permanent disability of the claimant as 45%. It is pertinent to point out that
P.W.2 is not the doctor who gave treatment to the claimant. Under this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
circumstance, the Tribunal reduced the disability to 40%. Since there is no
functional disability, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage
of disability and awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards partial permanent
disability which is very much reasonable. The Award passed by the
Tribunal under the other heads is more than sufficient. Therefore, I do not
see any reason to interfere with the same.
11. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
ii. The Award dated 03.09.2010 in M.C.O.P.46 of 2009 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Thiruvallur, is hereby confirmed.
23.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
mtl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvallur.
2. The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
52, General Muthiah Mudali Street,
Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
23.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
