Madras High Court
N.G.G.Kanesan vs T.Chandrasekar on 5 February, 2025
CMA.No.3707of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMA.No.3707 of 2021
N.G.G.Kanesan
... Appellant
Vs.
1.T.Chandrasekar
2.United India Insurance Company Limited,
Silingi Building,
No.134, Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in MCOP.No.3822 of
2014, dated 17.09.2019 by the III Judge, Small Causes Court (Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.P.C.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.J.Micheal Visuwasam for R2
No such person for R1
JUDGMENT
The appellant/injured claimant, not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3707of 2021
III Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai in MCOP.No.3822 of 2014, dated
17.09.2019, has come by way of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The appellant/claimant met with an accident on 22.01.2014,
when he was riding his motor cycle. Since no arguments were advanced on
the question of negligence and liability, necessary facts leading to the
fixation of negligence and liability by the Tribunal are not discussed in this
order.
3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant/claimant and the
learned counsel for second respondent/Insurance Company.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
submits that the Medical Board issued disability certificate fixing disability
at 65% under Ex.C1 and the Tribunal without any basis reduced the same to
5%. Therefore, the amount fixed by the Tribunal under the head of loss of
earning capacity with partial disability requires enhancement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3707of 2021
5. The learned counsel also submitted that though the claimant
produced the medical bills for more amount the Tribunal has accepted only
few and fixed the compensation under the head of medical expenses only for
a sum of Rs.17,086/-.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/Insurance Company by taking this Court to the reason given by
the Tribunal contended that the disability of 65% assessed by the medical
board was very much on higher side and therefore, the Tribunal rightly came
to the conclusion that the victim suffered disability of 5%. The learned
counsel further by relying on the reasoning of the Tribunal submitted that
the Medical Bills produced by the claimant were doubted and rightly
rejected by the Tribunal and the same requires no interference.
7. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
8. A perusal of Ex.C1 would indicate that the Medical Board
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3707of 2021
had given opinion that due to “Intercondylar fracture, right Humerus” bone,
the claimant suffered a disability of 65%. Now, we have to see whether
disability suffered by the claimant interfered with avocation and his earning
capacity was affected. Even, as per the claim petition, the claimant was
doing catering service at the time of accident in the name and style of
“Srinivasa Food Service”. While PW.1 was examined before the Tribunal,
he categorically admitted that he employed nearly ten persons and carried on
catering service at the time of accident. He also admitted, even after
accident, he is continuing catering business and even at the time of his
examination, he employed ten persons. Therefore, it is clear, the disability
suffered by him does not affect the catering business, he continues to do the
same with the assistance of employees. In such case, the Tribunal ought not
have applied multiplier method. Though this Court does not agree with the
view taken by the Tribunal, reducing the disability assessed by the Medical
Board, in view of the reasons mentioned above, this Court is not inclined to
apply multiplier method. Further, the claimant is entitled to compensation
on percentage basis and as per Ex.C1, claimant was assessed to 65%
disability. The accident had taken place in the year 2014. Therefore, the
claimant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- for each percentage of the disability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3707of 2021
Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,25,000/- under the head of partial
permanent disability.
9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
vehemently contended that the medical bills produced by the claimant has
not been taken into consideration, a perusal of Ex.P6 series of medical bills
produced by the claimant would show that the claimant had taken medical
treatment in VSR Ortho Hospital, Kancheepuram and Kavitha Ortho and
Multi Specialty Hospital for the very same period. By referring to this
discrepancy in the consolidated bill issued by VSR Ortho Hospital dated
27.01.2014 for a sum of Rs.47,900/-, the Tribunal rightly rejected the same.
Therefore, the reasoning given by the Tribunal for rejection of some
medical bills produced by the petitioner is acceptable. However, the
claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- as against 20,000/- towards pain
and suffering. Having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered by him
and the period of treatment, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the head of attender charges at Rs.2,700/- is increased as Rs.10,000/-.
The other amounts awarded by the Tribunal on various heads are confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3707of 2021
10 In the light of the above discussion, this Court modifies the
compensation in the following manner:
S.No Description Amount Amount
awarded by awarded by this
Tribunal Court
(Rs) (Rs)
1. Pain and sufferings 20,000/- 30,000/-
2. Extra nourishment expenses 10,000- 10,000-
3. Loss of earning 3,15,000/- -
4. Attender Charges 2,700/- 10,000/-
5. Transport and Medical 17,086/- 17,086/-
Expenses
6. Damages to Clothes 1,000/- 1,000/-
7. Partial Permanent Disability - 3,25,000/-
Total 3,65,786/- 3,93,086/-
11. In view of the discussion made earlier, the claimant is
entitled to a sum of Rs.3,93,100/- (rounded off) as against a sum of
Rs.3,65,786/- awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant is entitled to interest at
the rate of 7.5% on the enhanced award. The respondents are directed to
deposit the enhanced amount with interest within a period of four weeks
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3707of 2021
from the date of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of MCOP.No.3822 of
2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Small
Causes Court Chennai. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with
interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by making
formal application before the Tribunal.
12. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed.
05.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ub
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
III Judge, Small Causes Court , Chennai.
2.2.The Section Officer
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3707of 2021
05.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
