Madras High Court

M.Murugan vs P.Pandian on 3 February, 2025

                                                                            CMA.No.2731 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    Dated :03.02.2025

                                                        CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                                   CMA No.2731 of 2021

                       M.Murugan                                                  ... Appellant

                                                           Vs.

                       1.P.Pandian
                       2.Shriram General Insurance Company Limited
                         1st floor, Plot No.5, Ramachandran Street,
                         Saravana Nagar, Seevaram, Perungudi,
                         Chennai-600 096                     ... Respondent

                       Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                       Vehicles Act 1988, to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation
                       in MCOP. No.9/2017 dated 15/02/2021 on the file of the MACT
                       /Special Sub court No.1, (Motor Accident Claim Petitions), Small
                       Causes Court Chennai


                                  For appellant    : M/s.Ramya V.Rao
                                  For Respondent   : M/s.R.Sree Vidhya for R2
                                                     R1- person not found




                       Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                CMA.No.2731 of 2021


                                                         JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the claimant has come before this Court by way of this

appeal.

2. It is not in dispute that appellant is a victim of road accident

that had taken place on 02.12.2014 at about 18.50 hours. The petitioner

was a rider of an unregistered motorcycle. While he was proceeding

near Timmavaram Petrol Bank, a van with registration No.TN-02-R-

1590 owned by 1st Respondent, came in the opposite direction and hit

the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner suffered

three fractures in shaft of right femur, both the bones in the right leg

and fracture in the lateral condyle right femur. It is claimed by the

appellant that the accident had taken place due to negligence of driving

of the first respondent. Hence, the claim petition was filed.

3. The first respondent remained ex-parte and the claim petition

was resisted by the second respondent by filing counter.

4. The Tribunal found that the accident had taken place due to

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

rash and negligent driving of a first respondent vehicle and with regard

to that finding there is no challenge by the respondents. The appeal has

been filed by the claimant questioning the quantum arrived at by the

Tribunal.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was a mason by profession and having regard to the fact he

suffered fracture in femur bone and both the bones of the right leg, the

Tribunal should have adopted multiplier method. The learned counsel

further submitted that the amount fixed by the tribunal under various

heads such as transportation, extra nourishment, attendant charges, loss

of earning etc., are on lower side having regard to the fact that the

petitioner was inpatient for 58 days. Alternatively, the learned counsel

also submitted that amount of Rs.3,000/- fixed by tribunal based on

percentage basis is also on lower side.

6. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that

the petitioner was operated and internal plate fixation was done and the

same was subsequently removed and hence, there is nothing on record

to show that the injury suffered by the petitioner affects his avocation.

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

Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation by taking

per percentage basis. The learned counsel further submits that the

tribunal had taken into consideration the entire evidence available on

record and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to a

sum of Rs.1,47,834/- and the same is based on proper appreciation of

evidence available on record. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the

appeal by confirming the award.

7. The claimant has not examined the doctor who treated him to

show the injury suffered by him really affects his avocation. It is also

seen that internal plate fixation was done and the same was

subsequently removed. In the absence of material on record to show

injury suffered by the petitioner affects his avocation, the Tribunal is

justified in fixing compensation on percentage basis.

8. The Tribunal had fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-

per percentage of the disability for the accident that had taken place in

the year 2014. This court feels that the amount is on lower side and

hence, the said amount is enhanced to Rs.4000/- per percentage.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.60,000/-(15 x Rs.4000/-)

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

under the head 'partial disability'.

9. The Tribunal had granted Rs.25,000/- under the head 'pain and

suffering'. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner suffered three

fractures and had been in the hospital for 58 days, this court enhances

the said amount to Rs.50,000/-.

10. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/- under the head

transportation. It is also on lower side having regard to the date of

accident and hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.15000/-.

11. The award of compensation under the head 'medical

expenses' is based on evidence available on record and hence, it

requires no interference. Having regard to the length of treatment

period, the award of compensation under the head 'extra nourishment'

and 'attendant charges' are enhanced to Rs. 25000/- each.

12. The Tribunal fixed notional income only at the rate of

Rs.6000/- per month and the same is very much on the lower side.

Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the same to Rs.12,000/- per

month. Since the petitioner suffered three fractures and had been in the

hospital for 58 days, this court feels that he could have returned to the

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

work only after 8 months. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to

Rs.96,000/- under the head of loss of income during treatment period

( Rs.12,000/- x 8).

13.The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head

'loss of amenities'. The appellant suffered fractures in the right femur

bone, fracture in both the bones in the right leg and fracture in the

lateral condyle right femur. Therefore, he cannot lead a normal life

after the accident. Taking into consideration the said circumstances, the

petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the new head 'loss of

amenities'. Since compensation is awarded on percentage basis, the

claimant is not entitled to any amount under the head 'future prospects'.

Hence, the award of Rs.20,000/- under the said head is set aside. In

total, the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs.3,01,334/-. After

deducting 10% under the head contributory negligence, the petitioner

is entitled to Rs.2,71,201/- Thus, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,33,050/- to Rs.2,71,201/-. The break-

up is as follows :-

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

Sl. Description Amount Amount Award N awarded awarded confirmed o by by this or Tribunal Court enhanced (Rs) (Rs) or granted