Madras High Court
C.Devaraj vs Kalidhasan on 13 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.459 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.459 of 2020
C.Devaraj. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Kalidhasan,
2.Haridhas,
3.M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Chennai,
Branch Office at ACC Building 2nd Floor,
P.W.D. Road, Nagercoil.
Kanyakumari.
4.Murali,
5.Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd,
E-8/EPIR, R1100,
Sithaboora, Jaipur,
Rajasthan – 30202, India ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2018 in
M.C.O.P.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 8
C.M.A.(MD) No.459 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.A.Elis Chitra Devi
For Respondents :
for R1, R2 & R4 : No appearance
for R3 : Mr.J.S.Murali
for R5 : Mr.V.Sakthivel
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been preferred seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
2. The appellant filed a claim petition stating that while he was
travelling in his tempo van, a lorry insured with the third respondent came
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, as a result
of which, he sustained several grievous injuries.
3. The third respondent filed a counter stating that the accident took
place only due to the negligence of the claimant and that in any case, the
compensation claimed was excessive.
4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and
two more witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked Exs.P1 to P15. The
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
third respondent examined four witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.4 and marked
Exs.R1 to R9.
5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident took place only due to the
rash and negligent driving of the vehicle insured with the third respondent
herein and directed the third respondent to pay the compensation at Rs.
2,82,079/-.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that
though the Doctor assessed the disability at 30%, the Tribunal erroneously
reduced it to 25%; that the award of the compensation in other heads is
meagre; that the Tribunal had rejected the medical bills, which is
supported by the evidence of the Doctor; and that the Tribunal had not
awarded any compensation under the head future medical expenses.
7. The learned counsel for the third respondent/Insurance Company,
per contra, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and reasonable and no interference is called for.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is ‘whether
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?’
9. Admittedly, the appellant had suffered fractures in the femur
bone and the patella and the appellant had also undergone surgery for the
fractures suffered by him. The Doctor assessed the disability at 30%.
However, the Tribunal had disbelieved the evidence of the Doctor stating
that he was in the habit of giving evidence in the Court regularly for the
benefit of the claimants. However, this Court is of the view that the
evidence of the Doctor has to be assessed on its own merits and cannot be
rejected merely because he had been given evidence in other cases. The
nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant would show that the
disability assessed by the Doctor at 30% cannot be said to be excessive.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the disability can be fixed at 30%
and Rs.3,000/- can be awarded per percentage of disability. Hence, the
compensation under the head ‘Disability’ is enhanced to Rs.90,000/-.
10. Similarly, the Tribunal had disbelieved Ex.P12 series/the
medical bills submitted by the appellant herein for the treatment taken for
a period between March 2013 and April 2015 to the tune of Rs.44,324/-. It
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is seen from the evidence of the Doctor that he had prescribed medicines
and issued prescriptions, which were marked as Ex.P14 series. There is no
reason to disbelieve the prescriptions issued by the Doctor and the
medical bills submitted by the claimant and therefore, this Court is of the
view that the medical bills-Ex.P12 series can be accepted and Rs.44,324/-
can be awarded to the claimant.
11. As regards the future medical expenses, the claimant had
produced a certificate from the Doctor Ex.P10 to show that the claimant
has to undergo surgery to remove the rod, screws and wires. However, the
doctor had given an approximate cost of Rs.50,000/-. This Court is of the
view that considering the year of the accident and the nature of the
expenses spent for the surgery, a sum of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded
under the head ‘future medical expenses’.
12. Though the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,300/- towards
extra nourishment, this Court is of the view that the same can be enhanced
to Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.2,000/- under the head
'Transport charges'. This Court is of the view that Rs.5,000/- can be
awarded under the said head. Thus, the compensation awarded by the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tribunal is enhanced as follows:
Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed,
the Tribunal this Court enhanced or
granted
1 Partial permanent Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 90,000/- Enhanced
disability
2 Pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Confirmed
3 Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Confirmed
4 Medical expenses as per Rs.1,00,279/- Rs. 1,00,279/- Confirmed
Ex.P7
5 Attendant charges Rs. 1,500/- Rs. 1,500/- Confirmed
6 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,300/- Rs. 5,000/- Enhanced
7 Loss of income Rs. 27,000/- Rs. 27,000/- Confirmed
8 Transportation charges Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Enhanced
9 Medical expenses as per --- Rs. 44,324/- Granted
Ex.P12 series
10 Future medical expenses --- Rs. 25,000/- Granted
Total Rs.2,82,079/- Rs.3,73,103/- Enhanced by
Rs.91,024/-
13. The third respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.3,73,103/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Seventy Three Thousand One Hundred and three 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 delay period of 534 days in filing
this appeal) and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. The claimant/appellant is permitted to withdraw the
compensation, 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.
15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs.
13.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
To:
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari.
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
13.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
