Madras High Court
A.Kannadhasan vs S.Ismail on 2 September, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R.Hemalatha
CMA.No.2202 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.2202 of 2024
A.Kannadhasan ... Appellant
vs.
1. S.Ismail
2 The Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited,
No.6, Reliance House,
6th Floor,
Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 21.06.2023 in
M.C.O.P.3700/2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Palanikumar
For R2 : Mrs.R.Sreevidhya
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.3700/2017 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. He filed the claim
petition under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accident which happened on 14.08.2017.
2. The brief case of the appellant / claimant is as follows :
On 14.08.2017, the claimant was walking along Kondur main
road. When he was nearing Kondur bus stop at about 8.15 p.m., a motor
cycle bearing Registration number TN-31-AH-2129 belonging to the first
respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant, as a
result of which, he sustained injuries all over his body.
3. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the two wheeler bearing Registration number TN-31-AH-
2129 was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was
insured with the second respondent, the Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to him.
4. In the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle remained absent and
was set exparte. The second respondent resisted the claim petition on all
the grounds available to the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Vehicles Act.
5. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record,
fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the two wheeler bearing
Registration number TN-31-AH-2129. Since the rider of the two wheeler
did not have a valid driving license, the Tribunal directed the second
respondent, Insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.5,34,075/-
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 owner of the vehicle, vide, its orders dated 21.06.2023.
6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the appellant / claimant has filed the present appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. Heard Mr.N.Palanikumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel for the second
respondent.
8. Mr.N.Palanikumar, learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant contended that though the Medical Board attached to the
Government Hospital, Cuddalore had assessed 78% partial permanent
disability, the Tribunal has reduced it as 58% based on the evidence of
Dr.Natarajan (R.W.1). His contention is that Dr.Natarajan (R.W.1) is not
the doctor who gave treatment to the claimant and in the circumstances,
the Tribunal was wrong in reducing the percentage of disability assessed
by the competent Medical Board. He therefore prayed for enhancement of
the compensation.
9. Per contra Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel appearing for
the second respondent contended that the Tribunal had rightly reduced the
percentage of disability based on the evidence of Dr.Natarajan (R.W.1)
and awarded just compensation and therefore, the same need not be
disturbed.
10. A perusal of the records shows that the Medical Board
assessed the partial permanent disability as 78%. A perusal of the
discharge summary shows that the claimant has sustained the following
injuries:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"Hemorrhagic contusions, extra dural and subarachnoid
hemorrhages as detailed.
Extensive craniofacial fractures as detailed.
No trauma related abnormality in cervical spine."
In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that fixing 78%
of partial permanent disability would meet the ends of justice. Since the
accident took place in the year 2017, a sum of Rs.7,000/- is fixed per
percentage of partial permanent disability. The following tabular column
shows the award passed by the Tribunal and the modified compensation
awarded by this Court :
S.No. Heads Amount awarded Award of this
by the Tribunal Court
1. Partial Permanent Rs.2,90,000/- Rs.5,46,000/-
Disability (58X5,000) (78X7,000)
2. Pain and Sufferings Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/-
3. Medical expenses Rs.1,42,075/- Rs.1,42,075/-
4. Extra nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
5. Damage to clothes Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/-
6. Transportation charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
7. Attender charges Rs.40,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.5,34,075/- Rs.7,60,075/-
11. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced from Rs.5,34,075/- to Rs.7,60,075/- which would carry interest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
12. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.5,34,075/- to Rs.7,60,075/-.
iii. The appellant / claimant is directed to pay court fee for the
enhanced compensation amount, if any, within a period of four
weeks from the date of this order and the Registry is directed to
draft the decree only after receipt of the Court fee.
iv. The second respondent, Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount i.e.
Rs.7,60,075/- (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 within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order / uploading of this order to
the credit of M.C.O.P.3700/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore in the first
instance and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
v. On such deposit being made the appellant, claimant is permitted to
withdraw the same with accrued interest and costs, after following
due process of law.
vi. The appellant/claimant is not entitled to claim any interest for the
period of delay of 156 days in filing this appeal.
02.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
vum
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
R.HEMALATHA, J.
vum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
02.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
