Madras High Court
Arun vs Shanmugam on 6 February, 2025
CMA.No.2669 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMA.No.2669 of 2022
Arun
... Appellant
Vs.
1.Shanmugam
2.M/s.National Insurance Company Limited,
2nd Floor, Thuvaraganath Complex,
Trichy Main Road,
Venkatesapuram,
Perambalur.
... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, against the order in MCOP.No.266 of 2019, dated 08.07.2022,
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Perambalur.
For Appellant : M/s.K.Priyavarshini
For Respondents : M/s.J.Chandran
for R2
R1-exparte
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2669 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The appellant/injured claimant, not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur in MCOP.No.266 of 2019, dated
05.04.2021, has come by way of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. It is not in dispute that the appellant/claimant suffered injury
in a road accident that had taken place on 31.10.2018. Both the counsel
appearing for the appellant and the respondents have not advanced
arguments on negligence and liability aspect. Therefore, the facts necessary
for deciding negligence and liability aspect have not been discussed in this
judgment.
3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant/claimant and the
learned counsel appearing for second respondent/Insurance Company.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
would submit that as per the disability certificate issued by Medical Board
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
under Ex.C1, the Medical Board assessed the disability at 40% and the same
has been reduced by the Tribunal without any basis and therefore, the
amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of permanent disability
shall be suitably increased by taking disability at 40%.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/Insurance Company would submit that 40% disability was
assessed by the Medical Board in relation to left upper limb of the injured
and the same is converted into whole body disability and fixed at 15%.
Therefore, according to him, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
towards permanent disability does not call for any interference.
6. A perusal of Ex.P4-wound certificate would indicate that
the appellant received following two injuries due to the accident:
(i) Severe degloving injury of anterior and posterior
compartments of left upper arm and cubital fossa;
(ii) Fracture left humerus is exposed to environment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The Medical Board which examined the injured had issued
Ex.C1-disability certificate fixing the disability for left upper limb at 40%.
The 40% disability issued by the Medical Board is only for the left upper
limb of the claimant and the same has to be converted for whole body.
Admittedly, the claimant is a Civil Engineer in construction work. The
nature of his work involves supervision and the nature of disability suffered
by him in the left upper limb will not fully affect his avocation. The 40%
disability assessed for upper limb has to be converted for whole body.
Though the Medical Board assessed the disability at 40%, the Tribunal
rightly assessed the whole body disability at 15% by taking into
consideration the nature of the work of the appellant. Therefore, the
submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that
reduction of the disability by the Tribunal to 15% is unjustified cannot be
accepted. Therefore, the amount of Rs.5,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
under the head of disability by fixing the whole body disability at 15% need
not be interfered with.
8. This Court feels that having regard to the date of accident
and other facts, the notional income at Rs.20,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on the higher side. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount
under the head loss of income during treatment period. Admittedly, the
appellant suffered a fracture in left upper limb and he had taken treatment
for the same. Therefore, the injuries suffered by him would have kept him
out of his work at least for four to six months. Though notional income
fixed by the Tribunal is on higher side, having regard to the fact the
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of
income during treatment period, this Court is inclined not to disturb the
notional income as fixed by the Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, the award amount passed by the Tribunal is
confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
06.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ub
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Cases, Special Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
