Madras High Court

V.Lallitha vs The Managing Director on 6 February, 2025

                                                                           CMA.No.3558 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    Dated :06.02.2025

                                                        CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                                  CMA No.3558 of 2021

                       V.Lallitha                                               ... Appellant

                                                           Vs.
                       The Managing Director
                       Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited
                       Pallavan Salai
                       Chennai-600 002                                     ... Respondent

                       Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                       Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the order in MCOP.No.5476 of 2011
                       dated 22.09.2014 on the file of II Judge, Small Causes Court (Motor
                       Accidents Claims Tribunal) , Chennai.
                                  For appellant   : Mr.AGF. Terry Chella Raja
                                                   for M/s.A.Shanmugaraj
                                  For Respondents : Mr.M.Murali Vinoth
                                                     Standing Counsel

                                                    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.

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

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant/claimant suffered a

fracture in the Tibia bone of the right leg in a road accident that had

taken place on 20.01.2011. It is also not in dispute that the claimant

suffered degloving injury in the left leg and heel pad avulsion due to the

accident. Both the learned counsel did not advance any arguments on

the question of negligence and liability and therefore, the facts

necessary for deciding those questions are not adverted to in this

appeal. Therefore, the appeal is confined only to the question of

quantum of compensation.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the

accident, the victim suffered a fracture in the right leg and serious

injury on the left leg. The learned counsel submits that she was

employed as a tailor at the time of accident and hence, the injury

suffered by her will interfere with her avocation. Though the Tribunal

applied the multiplier method, the income fixed by the Tribunal at

Rs.5000/- for the accident that had taken place in the year 2011 is very

much on the lower side. Therefore, the learned counsel requests this

court to enhance the compensation amount by fixing appropriate

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

notional income. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount

awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of income' for four months

is very much on the lower side having regard to the treatment

undergone by the injured.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation submitted

that the claimant failed to produce any acceptable proof for

substantiating the income claimed by her. Therefore, the Tribunal is

justified in fixing notional income of Rs.5000/- per month. The learned

counsel further submitted that the Tribunal, having applied the

multiplier method and assessed the compensation ought not to have

granted further amount on percentage basis.

5. In order to prove the disability suffered by the injured

claimant, an orthopedic surgeon was examined as PW2. He assessed

partial permanent disability of the victim due to fracture of right tibia at

55%. The victim also examined the Doctor, who treated the degloving

injury and avulsion in the heel pad of the left leg as PW3. He assessed

disability due to the injury to the left leg at 35%. The PW3 deposed that

the movement of the victim's left ankle got restricted by 50 degree.

Therefore, as per the evidences of PW2 and PW3, Doctors, partial

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

permanent disability of the victim put together comes to 90%. If the

same is confined to whole body disability, the percentage shall be taken

as 30%. Therefore, this court proceeds to fix the disability suffered by

the claimant at 30% instead of 25% as fixed by the Tribunal.

6. Coming to the question of income of the injured at the time of

accident, the Tribunal fixed only Rs.5000/- per month. The accident had

taken place in the year 2011. It is the case of the appellant that the

victim was employed as a Tailor. In order to prove the same, the

customer of the victim was examined as PW4. Even if no proof is

produced by the victim to prove the income, the Court can fix the

notional income by taking into consideration the prevailing

circumstances.

7. This Court, based on the guidelines issued in Andal and

Others Vs Avinav Kannan and another reported in

MANU/TN/6368/2018, fixes the notional income of the injured at

Rs.8500/- per month. The claimant is entitled to 10% future prospects

having regard to her age which was fixed at 53 years by the Tribunal.

Hence, notional income together with future prospects fixed at

Rs.9350/- Therefore, the amount payable to the victim under the head

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

'permanent disability' is calculated as follows:-

Rs.9350 x 12 x 11 x 30/100 =Rs.3,70,260/-

8. The victim undergone surgery two times and she was inpatient

in the hospital for more than 41 days for both the surgeries together.

Therefore, the claimant is entitled to loss of income for at least 6

months. Therefore, the amount under the head 'loss of income' for 6

months is Rs.51,000/- as against the amount fixed as Rs.20,000/- by the

Tribunal for 4 months. The amount under the head 'loss of amenities' is

increased to Rs. 20,000/- as against the amount fixed as Rs.15,000/- by

the Tribunal. Since the amount payable to the petitioner for disability is

assessed by applying multiplier method, the claimant is not entitled to

any amount based on percentage method. Therefore, the amount of

Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal by applying percentage method

is set aside.

9. In view of the discussions made earlier, the award amount

granted by the Tribunal is enhanced as follows:-

                              Sl. Description             Amount       Amount       Award


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


                              N                             awarded          awarded     confirmed
                              o                                by             by this        or
                                                            Tribunal          Court      enhanced
                                                              (Rs)             (Rs)      or granted
                              1. Pain and Suffering             35,000/-     35,000/-    Confirmed
                              2. Attendant Charges              10,000/-     10,000/-    Confirmed
                              3. Extra Nourishments             10,000/-     10,000/-    Confirmed
                              4. Transportation                 10,000/-     10,000/-    Confirmed
                                 Expenses
                              5. Permanent                  1,10,000/-         Nil        Set aside
                                 Disability
                              6. Loss of Income                 20,000/-     51,000/-     Enhanced
                              7. Damage to Clothes              1000/-        1000/-      Confirmed
                              8.      Medical Bills         3,75,000/-     3,75,000/- Confirmed
                              9      Loss of amenities of       15,000/-     20,000/-     Enhanced
                                     life
                              10 Loss of earning            1,65,000/-     3,70,260/-     Enhanced
                                 power
                                             Total          7,51,000/-     8,82,260/-    Enhanced
                                                                                             by
                                                                                         Rs.1,31,260
                                                                                              /-

10 . With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

at Rs.7,51,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.8,82,260/- The

appellant/claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum

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

(excluding the delay period, if any) from the date of filing of the claim

petition till the date of realization. The respondent is directed to deposit

the enhanced sum 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. On deposit of the enhanced sum, the

appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with interest

and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by filing a formal