Madras High Court
Rajendran vs Sagadevan on 25 October, 2024
Author: R. Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
C.M.A.No.2831 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.2831 of 2024
Rajendran ... Appellant
..Vs..
1. Sagadevan
2. The Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
No.46, Moore Street, 3rd Floor,
Chennai 600 001. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 21.08.2023 in M.C.O.P.
No.4834 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K. Balaji
R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr. S. Senthilkumar
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P. No.4834 of 2016, on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes,
Chennai, and he filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 3 of the M.A.C.T. Rules, seeking
compensation of Rs.55,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road
accident that occurred on 10.03.2016.
2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 10.03.2016, he
was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration
Number TN-19-J-9585 on Perunthandalam road and at about 19.30 hours
a speeding two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-19-R-8661 came in
the opposite direction and hit the two wheeler in which he was travelling
as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries all over his body.
He was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital.
2.1. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of the
rider of the offending two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-19-R-
8661, belonging to the first respondent, was the cause of the accident and
that since the said two wheeler was insured with the second respondent,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the National Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, the owner and the
insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him.
3. In the Tribunal, the first respondent remained absent and
was set ex parte. The second 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,
fastened negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler bearing
Registration No.TN-19-R-8661. Since the rider of the two wheeler did
not have a valid driving licence on the date of accident, the Tribunal
directed the second respondent Insurance Company to pay compensation
of Rs.28,78,700/- to the claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, in the first
instance, and then recover the same from the first respondent, the owner
of the offending two wheeler, under the same cause of action (Pay and
Recover).
5. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6. Heard Mr.K. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.S. Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent Insurance Company.
7. Mr. K. Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not commensurate with
the injuries sustained by the claimant and prayed for enhancement of the
same.
8. Per contra, Mr.S. Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for
the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal
after analysing the evidence on record awarded just compensation and
therefore the same need not be disturbed in the present appeal.
9. It is seen from the records that the claimant was aged 28
years on the date of accident and his right leg was amputated below knee
level. The Medical Board assessed the disability of the claimant as 80%.
According to the claimant he was working in a private concern in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
packing department, which includes loading and unloading of the goods.
Therefore, multiplier method has to be applied as per the decision in
Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2011(1)SCC 343.In
the absence of satisfactory income proof, the Tribunal fixed the monthly
income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/-. Considering the year of accident
and the age of the claimant, a sum of Rs.14,000/- is fixed as the monthly
income of the claimant. As per the decision of the Supreme Court of
India in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in
2017 (2) TNMAC 601, 40% is added towards future prospects of the
claimant. The proper multiplier in the instant case is 17 as per the decision
rendered in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Accordingly the 'loss of
earning capacity' is calculated as follows.
Calculation for loss of earning capacity
Notional income fixed - Rs.14,000/-
40% Future prospects - Rs.19,600/-
Proper multiplier - 17
Disability suffered by appellant - 80%
Loss of earning capacity - 19,600 x 12 x 17 x 80/100
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
= Rs.31,98,720/-.
The following tabular column would show the amount awarded by the
Tribunal and the amount awarded by this Court under various heads.
S.No Heads Amount awarded Amount
by Tribunal awarded by this
(Rs) Court
(Rs)
1. Disability 18,27,840/- 31,98,720/-
2. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
3. Loss of earning 24,000/- -
4. Medical Expenses 7,26,776/- 7,26,776/-
5. Loss of amenities 1,00,000/- 2,00,000/-
and marital
prospects
6. Attender's charges 50,000/- 50,000/-
7. Transportation 25,000/- 25,000/-
charges
8. Extra nourishment 25,000/- 50,000/-
Total 28,78,616/- 43,50,496/-
Rounded off to
28,78,700/-
9.1. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced to Rs.43,50,496/-. This amount shall carry interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
10. In the result,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.43,50,496/-.
iii. The appellant / claimant is directed to pay the court fee for the
enhanced compensation amount, if any, and the Registry is directed
to draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee.
iv. The second respondent, the National Insurance Company Limited,
Chennai, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount
of Rs.43,50,496/- (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, in the first instance, to the credit of
M.C.O.P. No.4834 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai,within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order/uploading of this order, and then recover the same from the
first respondent under the same cause of action (Pay and Recover).
v. On such deposit being made, the appellant / claimant is at liberty to
withdraw the same after following due process of law.
vi. The claimant is not entitle to claim interest for the period of delay
67 days in filing the appeal, as per the orders of this Court dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
03.10.2024 in C.M.P. No.21296 of 2024.
25.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
bga
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai
2. The Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
No.46, Moore Street, 3rd Floor,
Chennai 600 001.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. HEMALATHA, J.
bga
25.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
