Madras High Court
Muthu vs Sivaperumal @ Sathish on 1 April, 2025
CMA.No.974 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :01.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMA No.974 of 2025
Muthu ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Sivaperumal @ Sathish
2. Nouroul Amine
3. The National Insurance Company Limited
Rep., by its Branch Manager,
Having office at No.13, Mudaliar Street,
Mayiladuthurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act, to allow this appeal and be pleased to enhance the amount
awarded in MCOP No. 24 of 2019 dated 10.07.2023 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (In the Court of Sub Court), Karaikal.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For respondents : M/s.N.B.Surekha for R3
R1 & R2-Notice dispensed with
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:56 pm )
CMA.No.974 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, the injured claimant has come before this
Court by way of this appeal.
2. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that when he was riding
the motorcycle on 11-10-2018 at Kamaraj Salai, Karikal from North to
South direction, the first respondent had driven his lorry in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler. As a result of the
accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries. Therefore, the claim
petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. The first and second respondents, driver and owner of the lorry
remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The third respondent, insurer of
the vehicle alone contested the claim petition on the ground that there
was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. It was stated by
the third respondent that the accident had occurred only due to the
negligence on the part of the claimant, who also failed to produce valid
driving license.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:56 pm )
4. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on record, came
to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. It also fixed 10%
contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The compensation
payable to the claimant was quantified at Rs. 1,48,500/- after deducting
10% towards contributory negligence. Aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the claimant has come before this court.
5. The learned counsel for the Appellant/ Claimant submitted that
the Tribunal committed an error in fixing 10% contributory negligence
on the part of the claimant for his failure to produce a valid driving
license. The learned counsel also submitted that the amount of
Rs.5,000/- per percentage of the disability awarded by the Tribunal is
very much on lower side. He also sought for increase of the
compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities
and loss of income during treatment period.
6. The learned counsel for the third respondent/ Insurance
Company submitted that the claimant failed to produce valid driving
license at the time of the accident and hence, the Tribunal was justified
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:56 pm )
in fixing 10% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The
learned counsel further submitted that the amount awarded by the
Tribunal on various heads are just and reasonable. Therefore, according
to him, the award shall be confirmed.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana
Vs Surinder Singh and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 436 held
that mere failure to hold the valid driving license is not a ground to fix
contributory negligence on the part of the driver unless there is a
positive evidence to show that the accident had occurred due to his
negligence also. In the case on hand, the tribunal fixed 10%
contributory negligence on the part of the claimant only on the ground
that he failed to produce a valid driving license. Absolutely, there is no
evidence available on record to show that negligent driving on the part
of the claimant also contributed to the accident. In these circumstances,
the finding rendered by the tribunal fixing 10% contributory negligence
on the part of the claimant is set aside.
8. The Medical Board which examined the claimant issued
Exhibit C1, Disability Certificate fixing 15% disability. The accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:56 pm )
had occurred on 11-10-2018. Taking into consideration the date of
accident and the prevailing cost of living, this court is inclined to fix
Rs.7,000/- per percentage of the disability. Therefore, the claimant is
entitled to Rs.1,05,000/- under the head disability (15% x 7,000).
9. It is seen from the records that the claimant suffered
undisplaced fracture at condyle right tibia knee. He has been in hospital
for 16 days from 11-10-2018 to 26-10-2018. Taking into consideration
the nature of the injury and the period of hospitalization, the amount of
Rs.15,000/- each awarded under the heads pain and suffering and loss
of amenities are increased to Rs.25,000/- each.
10. The claimant in his claim petition stated that he was a Painter
by profession and was earning a sum of Rs. 500/- per day. Even if there
is no evidence to substantiate the avocation and income of the claimant,
taking into consideration the plea raised by the claimant, the date of
accident, cost of living, etc., a sum of Rs.15,000/- could be fixed as
notional income. In that case, the claimant is entitled to Rs.45,000/-
(Rs.15,000 x 3) under the head loss of income during treatment period.
The amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded under the head damage to clothes is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:56 pm )
set aside. In all, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 2,35,000/-.
11. In view of the discussions made earlier, the award passed by
the Tribunal is modified as follows:-
Sl Description Amount Amount Award
. awarded awarded confirmed
N by by this or
o Tribunal Court enhanced
(Rs) (Rs) or granted
1. Pain and sufferings 15,000/- 25,000/- Enhanced
2. Loss of amenities 15,000/- 25,000/- Enhanced
3. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
charges
3. Nutritional expenses 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed
5. Attendant charges 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed
6. Damage to clothes 1,000/- Nil Set aside
7 Loss of income 24,000/- 45,000/- Enhanced
8 Disability 75,000/- 1,05,000/- Enhanced
Total 1,65,000/- 2,35,000/- Enhanced
by
Rs.70,000/-
Less:10%contributory 16,500/- Set aside Set aside
negligence
Net compensation 1,48,500/- 2,35,000/- Enhanced
by
Rs.86,500/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:56 pm )
12. With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
at Rs.1,48,500/- is enhanced to Rs.2,35,000/-.The appellant is entitled
to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the date of realization. The 3rd respondent/Insurance
company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount along with
interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.
The appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same along with
interests and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by filing a
formal application before the Tribunal. No costs.
01.04.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
nr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:56 pm )
To
1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Sub Court, Karaikal.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:56 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
nr
01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 12:31:56 pm )
