Madras High Court
Sivaraman @ Sivananatham vs Gomathi on 4 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.392 of 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.392 of 2009
Sivaraman @ Sivananatham ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Gomathi,
2.M/s.Rayal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
46, Wildas Road,
Chennai – 14. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under 173 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2009 in
M.C.O.P.No.611 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal cum Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur.
For Appellant : Mr.S.B.Jameelarasu
For Respondents
for R1 : No appearance
for R2 : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Since the finding on negligence and liability are not under
challenge, the facts leading to the filing of the claim petition may not be
necessary for deciding the issue involved in this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that
though the Doctor-P.W.2 had assessed the disability at 39.33%,
considering the fracture and other grievous injuries suffered by the
appellant, the Tribunal had erroneously reduced the disability to 30% and
awarded meagre compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head ‘Permanent
disability’; that the compensation under the head ‘Loss of amenities’ was
not awarded; and that the compensation under the other heads is meagre
and that hence, the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance
Company, per contra, submitted that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is called for.
5. Though notice was served on the first respondent/owner of the
vehicle, none has entered appearance.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is ‘whether
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?’
7. Admittedly, the Doctor, examined on the side of the
appellant/claimant as P.W.2, had certified that the disability suffered by
the claimant was partial permanent disability to the extent of 39.33%. In
the light of the said evidence and the absence of any other contrary
evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have reduced the percentage of the
disability to 30%. The appellant had not established that he had suffered
any functional disability due to the injuries suffered by him. Considering
the year of accident, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.2,000/- can
be awarded for the percentage of the disability. Thus, the compensation
under the head ‘Permanent disability’ has to be enhanced to Rs.78,000/-.
8. Though the Tribunal had not awarded the compensation under
the head ‘Loss of amenities’, this Court is of the view that a sum of
Rs.25,000/- can be awarded under the said head.
9. Though the claimant had produced Ex.P6 series-Bills to prove
the expenses incurred by him, the Tribunal had disbelieved the bills and
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
awarded only a sum of Rs.800/- under the head ‘Medical expenses’.
Considering the nature of the bills, which have been certified by a
registered practitioner and the appellant was treated as inpatient in two
spells, this Court is of the view that the claimant would be entitled to a
sum of Rs.7,200/-, for the treatment taken by him for the period from
13.04.2007 to 28.04.2007 and Rs.12,600/- for the treatment taken by him
from 05.06.2007 to 03.07.2007, which is certified by the Doctor and he
would also be entitled to Rs.800/- towards lab charges for the treatment
taken by him. Thus, the compensation under the head ‘Medical expenses’
can be enhanced from Rs.800/- to Rs.20,600/-.
10. The compensation under the heads ‘Transport charges’ and
‘Extra nourishment’ has been awarded at Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal.
However, this Court is of the view that that can be enhanced to Rs.
20,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as
follows:
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed,
the Tribunal this Court enhanced or
granted
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Confirmed
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 Permanent disability Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 78,000/- Enhanced
3 Medical expenses Rs. 800/- Rs. 20,600/- Enhanced
4 Loss of income Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed
5 Transportation and Extra Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Enhanced
Nourishment
6 Loss of amenities --- Rs. 25,000/- Granted
Total Rs. 80,800/- Rs.1,83,600/- Enhanced by
Rs.1,02,800/-
11. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,83,600/- (Rupees One Lakh
Eighty Three Thousand and Six 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
the same together with proportionate interest and costs, less the 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.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs.
04.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
To:
1.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal Sub Court,
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur.
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
04.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
