Madras High Court

Mallika vs Shanmugarasu on 9 September, 2024

Author: R. Hemalatha

Bench: R. Hemalatha

                                                                                   C.M.A.No.1534 of 2024



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 09.09.2024

                                                       CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                                  CMA.No.1534 of 2024

                  Mallika                                                      ...Appellant
                                                          .Vs.

                  1.Shanmugarasu

                  2.The Branch Manager,
                  United India Insurance Company Limited,
                  Divisional Office : 171800, No.225,
                  TNA Complex, Salem Road,
                  Tiruchengode.                                                  ...Respondents

                  PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                  Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 01.06.2023 in M.C.O.P. 11 of
                  2020 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate
                  Court, Paramathy.


                                  For Appellant      : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran

                                  For R2             : Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan




                  1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     C.M.A.No.1534 of 2024




                                                        JUDGMENT

The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P. 11 of 2020 on the file

of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Paramathy. She filed the claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking

compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road

accident that took place on 18.12.2019.

2. The brief case of the claimant is as follows:

On 18.12.2019, the claimant was walking along Chithalandur –

Solasiramani Main Road. When she was nearing Pannappalayam, a

speeding motorcycle bearing Registration Number TN-88-Y-3837 belonging

to the first respondent, hit her, as a result of which, she sustained injuries all

over her body. She was immediately rushed to Surya Multi Speciality

Hospital, Tiruchengode. After getting first aid, she got herself admitted in

Ganga Medical Centre, Coimbatore, where she was treated as an inpatient

for 15 days.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent riding of the

rider of the two wheeler bearing Registration Number TN-88-Y-3837

belonging to the first respondent was the cause of the accident and that

since the said two wheeler was insured with the second respondent, the

United India Insurance Company Limited, the owner of the two wheeler

(first respondent) and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to her.

4. In the Tribunal, the owner of the two wheeler 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 after analysing the evidence on record, fastened

negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler since the rider of the

two wheeler was in an inebriated condition at the time of accident.

Therefore, the owner of the two wheeler was directed to pay the entire

compensation of Rs.3,57,057/- to the claimant together with interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

vide its orders dated 01.06.2023. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition

as against the second respondent.

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal and challenging fastening of negligence on the part of the rider of

the two wheeler, the claimant has filed the present appeal under Section 173

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. Heard Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel for the second

respondent.

8. Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran, learned counsel for the appellant

would contend that the Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of

Rs.3,57,057/- even though the claimant was hospitalised for more than 15

days. It is also his contention that the Tribunal had directed the owner of the

two wheeler to pay the entire compensation on the ground that the rider of

the two wheeler was in an inebriated condition at the time of riding his

vehicle. According to him, there is no evidence to substantiate the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Therefore, he prayed for overall enhancement of the compensation.

9. Per contra, Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel 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. A perusal of the records shows that the claimant was walking

along on the left hand side of the road. The rider of the two wheeler hit her

and on account of this, the claimant sustained injuries. In the Accident

Limited, Coimbatore, it is mentioned as 'Alleged history of RTA, Pedestrian

vs a drunk two-wheeler' and except this piece of evidence, there is nothing

on record to show that the rider of the two wheeler was in an inebriated

condition at the time of riding his vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal was

wrong in directing the owner of the two wheeler to pay the entire

compensation to the claimant. The Records also shows that the first

respondent had insured his vehicle with the second respondent, the United

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

India Insurance Company Limited, as is seen from the policy of insurance.

It is not disputed that the first respondent had insured his vehicle with the

second respondent Insurance Company. Therefore, the liability of the owner

of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company is joint and several.

11. The Medical Board attached to Government Hospital,

Namakkal, has assessed the partial permanent disability of the claimant as

6%. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- per percentage of disability since

there was no functional disability. The disability certificate does not speak

about functional disability. The age of the claimant was 50 years at the time

of accident and the accident took place in the year 2019. Considering the

same, awarding Rs.7,000/- per percentage would meet the ends of justice.

The following tabular column would show the amount awarded by the

Tribunal and the enhanced amount awarded by this Court under various

heads.

                           S.No          Heads           Amount awarded    Amount
                                                           by Tribunal  awarded by this
                                                               (Rs)         Court
                                                                             (Rs)
                          1.       Disability                    30,000/-       42,000/-
                          2.       Pain and sufferings           30,000/-       30,000/-


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis




                           S.No            Heads        Amount awarded    Amount
                                                          by Tribunal  awarded by this
                                                              (Rs)         Court
                                                                            (Rs)
                          3.       Extra nourishment               25,000/-        25,000/-
                          4.       Loss of income                   7,500/-         7,500/-
                          5.       Loss of amenities               20,000/-        20,000/-
                          6.       Attender's charges              15,000/-        15,000/-
                          7.       Damage to clothes                5,000/-         5,000/-
                          8.       Medical expenses              2,14,557/-      2,14,557/-
                          9.       Transportation                  10,000/-        10,000/-
                                   charges
                                      TOTAL                   Rs.3,57,057/-   Rs.3,69,057/-

12. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced

from Rs.3,57,057/- to Rs.3,69,057/- which would carry interest at the rate

of 7.5% per annum.

13. In the result,

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

Rs.3,57,057/- to Rs.3,69,057/-.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 first and the second respondent, the United India Insurance