Madras High Court
Elumalai vs Manickam. C on 12 September, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
CMA.No.2022 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.2022 of 2024
Elumalai ... Appellant
vs.
1. Manickam. C
2.The Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
No.232, VI Floor,
Bombay Mutual Buildings,
NSC Bose Road, Chennai - 600 001. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 31.03.2023 in
M.C.O.P.1795 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Ms. Ramya V. Rao
For R2 : Ms.S.Bhuvanasundari
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2022 of 2024
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.1795 of 2020 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court,
Chennai. He filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.49,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 27.06.2020.
2. The brief case of the claimant is as follows :
On 27.06.2020, the claimant was standing near the gate of
S.M.R. Transport in Armstrong Nagar, Chennai and at about 4.00 p.m., a
speeding lorry bearing Registration Number TN-04-AK-8563 belonging to
the first respondent, hit him, as a result of which, he fell down and
sustained injuries. He was immediately rushed to the Government Stanley
Hospital where he was treated as an inpatient for thirty days.
3. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the lorry bearing Registration Number TN-04-AK-8563 was
the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with
the second respondent, the New India Assurance Company Limited, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
to him.
4. In the Tribunal the owner of the lorry, remained absent and
was set ex parte. The second respondent Insurance Company resisted 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 driver of the lorry bearing Registration
Number TN-04-AK-8563 and also held that the owner of the lorry and the
insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of
Rs.20,72,900/- to the appellant/claimant together with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation,
vide its orders dated 31.03.2023.
6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Heard Ms.Ramya V. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant
and Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari, learned counsel for the second respondent.
8. Ms.Ramya V. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the claimant was a driver by profession earning a sum of
Rs.50,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly
income of the claimant as Rs.12,000/-. She also contended that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not commensurate with the
injuries sustained by the claimant. She therefore, prayed for enhancement
of compensation.
9. Per contra, Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari, learned counsel appearing
for the second respondent contended that the Award passed by the
Tribunal is based on the well laid down principles of law which were in
vogue at the time of passing of the order and therefore, the same need not
be disturbed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. A perusal of the discharge summary (Ex.P3) issued by the
Government Stanley Hospital shows that the claimant's right leg was
amputated below knee level. The Medical Board attached to Rajiv Gandhi
Government General Hospital has assessed the permanent disability of the
claimant as 75%. The appellant/claimant is a driver and suffered disability
to the extent of 75%. Therefore, multiplier method is warranted as per the
decision in Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in
2011(1)SCC 343.
11. According to the claimant, he was a driver by profession
earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. In the absence of satisfactory
income proof, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the
claimant as Rs.12,000/-. Considering the age of the claimant and the year
of the accident, this Court is of the opinion that fixing notional monthly
income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 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, 25% is
added towards future prospects of the claimant. The claimant was aged 47
years on the date of accident and the proper multiplier to be adopted in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
instant case is 13 as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and others
vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC
Calculation for loss of earning capacity
Notional income - Rs.15,000/-
25% Future prospects - Rs.18,750/-
Loss of earning capacity - 18,750 x 12 x 13 x 75/100
= Rs.21,93,750/-
12. 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. Description Amount Amount
awarded by awarded by this
Tribunal (Rs.) Court (Rs.)
1. Loss of earning 17,55,000/- 21,93,750/-
capacity
2. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
3. Medical Expenses 21,900/- 21,900/-
4. Loss of amenities 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
5. Attender's charges 20,000/- 30,000/-
6. Transportation 20,000/- 30,000/-
charges
7. Extra nourishment 20,000/- 50,000/-
Total 20,72,900/- 25,25,650/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No. Description Amount Amount
awarded by awarded by this
Tribunal (Rs.) Court (Rs.)
12. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced from Rs.20,72,900/- to Rs.25,25,650/- 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.20,72,900/- to Rs.25,25,650/-.
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 receipt of Court fee.
iv. The second Respondent, the New India Assurance Company
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Limited, Chennai, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount, i.e., Rs.25,25,650/- (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 to the credit of M.C.O.P.1795
of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Small
Causes Court, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
v. On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is at liberty to
withdraw the same, after following due process of law.
vi. The appellant / claimant is not entitled to claim interest for the
period of delay of 161 days in filing this appeal.
12.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mtl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
No.232, VI Floor,
Bombay Mutual Buildings,
NSC Bose Road, Chennai - 600 001.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
12.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
