Madras High Court
K.Sudhakar vs P.Arivalagan on 2 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.994 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.994 of 2023
K.Sudhakar. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.P.Arivalagan,
2.M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Divisional Manager,
CBO I, 39/40, Sharatha Complex,
Work Shop Road, Madurai,
Policy issued at 94-E,
South Kaliamman Kovil Street,
Main Road, Canara Bank Near,
Pattukottai – 614 601. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, to enhance the compensation amount passed in
M.C.O.P.No.184 of 2018 dated 30.09.2019 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Kumaravel
For Respondents :
for R1 : Ex parte
for R2 : Mr.A.Ilango
*****
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 7
C.M.A.(MD) No.994 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. The manner of the accident and the liability of the second
respondent to pay the compensation are not in dispute.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant that though the appellant had suffered 55% partial
permanent disability, the Tribunal had not awarded the compensation by
adopting the multiplier method and the compensation under the other
heads is meagre.
4. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal and
hence notice to the first respondent is dispensed with.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance
Company, per contra, submitted that in the absence of any evidence to
show that the claimant was working and he had suffered functional
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disability, the Tribunal was right in computing the compensation by
adopting the percentage method and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is ‘whether
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?’
7. The medical records produced on the side of the
appellant/claimant and the report of the Medical Board suggest that the
appellant had suffered partial permanent disability at 55%. It is admitted
by both the learned counsel that though the permanent disability was
shown as 62% in the said report, it was a mistake in calculation and the
actual disability suffered by the appellant is 55%. There is no evidence to
show that the appellant had suffered functional disability in any manner so
as to adopt the multiplier method. However, this Court is of the view that
considering the year of accident, Rs.5,000/- can be awarded per
percentage of disability. Hence, the compensation under the head ‘Partial
permanent disability’ can be enhanced to 55 x Rs.5,000/- = Rs.2,75,000/-.
8. The appellant/claimant had suffered frontal bone and facial bone
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fracture, injuries in the right temporal region and an injury in the eye.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the
injuries and age of the appellant, this Court is of the view that the
compensation under the head ‘Pain and suffering’ can be awarded at Rs.
50,000/-.
9. Though the appellant/claimant had not produced any documents
to show that he is likely to incur future medical expenses considering the
nature of treatment taken by him and the disability suffered by him, the
‘Future medical expenses’ cannot be ruled out. Hence, this Court is of the
view that Rs.50,000/- can be granted as compensation under the said head.
10. The award under the head transport to hospital, extra
nourishment and attendant charges can be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each.
The compensation awarded under the heads ‘loss of income’ and ‘Medical
expenses’ is confirmed. Hence, this award of compensation is enhanced as
follows:
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed,
the Tribunal this Court enhanced or
granted
1 Loss of Income Rs. 32,000/- Rs. 32,000/- Confirmed
2 Partial permanent Rs. 2,20,000/- Rs. 2,75,000/- Enhanced
disability(55 x Rs.5,000/-)
3 Medical expenses Rs. 4,46,300/- Rs. 4,46,300/- Confirmed
4 Pain and sufferings Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Enhanced
5 Transport to Hospital Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed
6 Extra Nourishment Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Enhanced
7 Attendant charges Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Enhanced
8 Future medical expenses --- Rs. 50,000/- Granted
Total Rs.7,24,300/- Rs.8,98,300/- Enhanced by
Rs.1,74,000/-
11. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.8,98,300/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs
Ninety Eight Thousand and Three Hundred only) together with interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date
of realization (excluding the period of dismissal for default if any) and
costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw
his share amount together with proportionate interest and costs, less the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing an appropriate application
before the Tribunal. The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the
necessary Court Fee, if any, on the enhanced amount.
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs.
02.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
To:
1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
apd
02.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
