Meena vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2373 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2373 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2025

Madras High Court

Meena vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... on 3 February, 2025

                                                                           CMA.No.2876 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     Dated 03.02.2025

                                                        CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                                   CMA No.2876 of 2021

                       Meena                                                    ... Appellant

                                                           Vs.

                       Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
                       rep. by its Managing Director,
                       Pudhiya Pugaivandi Salai,
                       Kumbakonam City and Town.                           ... Respondent

                       Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor

                       Vehicles Act 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 03.08.2015

                       made in MCOP No.205 of 2013 on the file of Principal Subordinate

                       Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayiladuthurai.



                                  For appellant    : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
                                  For Respondent   : Mr. M.Murali Vinoth




                       Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  CMA.No.2876 of 2021

                                                        JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the

Motor Accident Tribunal, the claimant has come before this court

seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injury due to

motor accident that had taken place on 15.04.2013. No arguments

have been advanced on the ground of negligence and liability, as the

appeal is confined to the quantum. Therefore, the facts necessary for

arriving at findings on the question of negligence and liability have not

been discussed.

3. The accident had taken place on 15.04.2013, as a result of the

same, the appellant suffered fracture in her ribs and her spleen was

removed due to the injuries suffered in that accident. The PW2, Doctor

has given disability certificate fixing disability at the rate of 37%.

Based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal fixed

compensation at Rs.3,20,989/-. Not satisfied with the same, the

claimant has filed the present appeal.

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

4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended

that the spleen of the appellant was removed due to the accident and

the same will result in substantial future medical expenses to be spent

by the appellant. Therefore, it is submitted by him that the

compensation awarded at Rs.2,00,000/- for removal of spleen is on

lower side. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that

the Doctor issued disability certificate, assessing disability of the

claimant at 12%. The Tribunal, by granting Rs.2,000/- per percentage,

has awarded only Rs.24,000/- (12x2000) for the disability suffered by

the appellant due to the fracture in her ribs and the same required

enhancement. The learned counsel also advanced his arguments for

enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various

conventional heads.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that by

taking into consideration the inconvenience caused to the appellant and

the future medical expenses, the Tribunal fixed the compensation for

removal of spleen at Rs.2,00,000/- and the same required no

interference by this court. He further submitted that all the amounts

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

fixed by the Tribunal in various conventional heads are reasonable and

therefore, the claimant/appellant is not entitled for any enhancement.

6. The Tribunal, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Punjab High Court, reported in 1984 ACJ 316, observed that in the

year 1984, for removal of spleen, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was granted and

taking into consideration the accident had taken place in the year 2013,

came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for a lump sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards partial permanent disability suffered by the

claimant/ appellant, due to the removal spleen.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant, by relying upon the

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance

Co. Ltd. Vs. Saraswathi and others (CMA Nos.2560 to 2567 of 2015)

reported in 2018 SCC Online Mad. 6324 submitted that for removal of

spleen, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation, taking

into consideration the future medical expenses.

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

8. The Pw2, Dr.Rajendran, in his evidence, has not stated

anything regarding the future medical expenses and administration of

medicines, due to the removal of spleen. In such circumstances, the

amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal towards partial

permanent disability for removal of spleen is just and reasonable and

the same is confirmed.

9. The accident had taken place in the year 2013. For the

disability suffered by the claimant towards the fracture in her ribs, the

Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage and awarded a sum

of Rs.24,000/- towards partial permanent disability. Taking into

consideration the year of accident, the said amount of Rs.24,000/- is

enhanced to Rs.36,000/- (12 x 3,000)

10. Since the appellant suffered removal of vital organ, namely

spleen, she is entitled to some more enhancement under the head 'pain

and sufferings' and accordingly it is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to

Rs.25,000/-.

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

11. The Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head

'Loss of amenities'. The appellant suffered a rib fracture and loss of

spleen. Therefore, she cannot lead her normal life, as before and

hence, she is entitled to Rs.10,000/- under the head ' loss of amenities '.

12. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

modified as follows:

                              Sl. Description              Amount      Amount       Award
                              No                          awarded by awarded by confirmed
                                                           Tribunal   this Court or enhanced
                                                             (Rs)        (Rs)     or granted
                              1.    Loss of Spleen         2,00,000    2,00,000       confirmed
                              2.    Partial permanent       24,000      36,000        enhanced
                                    disability
                              3.    Transportation          4,000       10,000        enhanced
                              4.    Attender charges        1,000       10,000        enhanced
                              5.    Pain and sufferings     10,000      25,000        enhanced
                              6.    Nutrition               2,000       10,000        enhanced
                              7.    Medical bills           79,989      79,989        confirmed
                              8.    Loss of amenities         -         10,000         granted
                                     Total                 3,20,989    3,80,989      enhanced by
                                                                                        60,000





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

13. With the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal at Rs.3,20,989/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.3,80,989/- together

with interest at 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if any)

from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

14. The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation

amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs,

less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit,

the appellant/claimant shall be permitted to withdraw the compensation

amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already

withdrawn after making formal application before the Tribunal. No