Madras High Court

Jeeva vs The Managing Director on 12 February, 2025

                                                                               CMA.No.673 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      Dated 12.02.2025

                                                          CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                                   CMA No.673 of 2024 and
                                                    CMP No.29597 of 2024

                       Jeeva                                                      ... Appellant

                                                            Vs.

                       The Managing Director,
                       Metropolitan Transport Corporation Villupuram Ltd.,
                       Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.                         ... Respondent



                       Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor

                       Vehicles Act 1988 against the order in MCOP No.4484 of 2019, dated

                       05.07.2023 on the file of the IV Judge, Motor Accident Claims

                       Tribunal, Small Casuses Court, Chennai



                                  For appellant      : Ms.Ramya V. Rao
                                  For Respondent     : Mr.Anton Dhanasekaran




                       Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 CMA.No.673 of 2024

                                                       JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the claimant has come before this court by filing the present

appeal.

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant/claimant met with an

accident on 24.05.2019, as a result of which, he suffered injury in his

right hand. Both the counsel for the appellant and the respondent have

not advanced any arguments on the question of negligence and liability

and therefore, the facts necessary for fixing negligence and liability

have not been considered in the present appeal.

3. Before Tribunal, in order to prove the nature of disability

suffered by him, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and on his

side, 9 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P9. The driver of the

respondent got examined as RW1. The disability certificate issued by

the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1. Based on the evidence

available on record, the Tribunal concluded that the accident had

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

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

respondent. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,85,920/- as

compensation for the injury suffered by the appellant/claimant. Not

satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant has come

forward with the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit

that due to the injury suffered by the appellant, his right hand got

crippled and the mobility of his right hand got restricted. The Medical

Board had assessed the disability suffered by the appellant and issued

Ex.C1, fixing disability at 55% and the same was reduced by the

Tribunal to 40%, without any basis. The learned counsel further

submits that the appellant marked Ex.P6, certificate issued by his

employer to prove his salary and his termination from the employment,

due to the injury, however, the same has not been considered by the

Tribunal.

5. A perusal of Ex.C1, disability certificate issued by the Medical

Board along with Ex.P5-photographs, would indicate that the

appellant's right hand got crippled due to the injury suffered by him.

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

The Medical Board has given its opinion that the appellant suffered

55% disability and the same is permanent one. A perusal of Ex.C1

further indicate that the movement of the appellant's right hand got

restricted, due to the injury. Ex.P6 certificate issued by the employer of

the appellant would indicate that the appellant was employed as a

Binder in a company called Lunar Graphics and due to the injury

suffered by him, he was terminated from service. The certificate

further indicates that the appellant was paid a sum of Rs.500/- per day

as wages.

6. Having regard to the nature of avocation of the appellant

(Binder), this court comes to the definite conclusion that the locomotor

disability suffered by the appellant in his right hand will certainly

interfere with his Binding work. The certificate issued by the employer

of the appellant would suggest that the appellant was terminated from

service due to the injury suffered by him. In such circumstances, the

Tribunal ought not have reduced the percentage of the disability

assessed by the Medical Board. The Medical Board is an expert, who

assessed disability at 55%. Unless there are compelling reasons, the

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

Tribunal is not entitled to reduce the percentage of the disability

assessed by the Medical Board. In the case on hand, as mentioned

supra, the disability suffered by the appellant directly interferes with

the avocation of the appellant and hence, this court feels that the

disability suffered by the appellant can be fixed at 55%, as assessed by

the Medical Board. In fact, the Apex Court in Prakash Chand

Sharma Vs. Rambabu Saini and others reported in

MANU/SC/0171/2025 held that if the disability percentage assessed

by the Medical Board is not acceptable, the Tribunal cannot reduce the

percentage and it can only seek reassessment by the competent expert.

In the case on hand, the respondent failed to seek any reassessment of

disability suffered by the appellant. In such circumstances, this court

feels that the disability suffered by the appellant shall be fixed at 55%,

as per Ex.C1.

7. Having regard to the date of accident, this court feels that even

if there is no documentary evidence to prove the income of the victim,

notional income should be fixed at Rs.15 000/- per month. In the case

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

on hand, the certificate issued by the employer of the appellant, which

was marked as Ex.P6 would indicate that he was paid a sum of

Rs.500/- per day, as his wages. In such circumstances, we can fix the

monthly income of the appellant/claimant at Rs.15,000/- .

8. As per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court

in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others

reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157( Special Leave Petition (Civil)

No.25590 of 2014 dated 31.10.2017), the appellant is entitled to 10%

enhancement towards future prospects. Therefore, the monthly income

of the appellant is fixed at Rs.16,500/- (15,000 +1500), which includes

10% future prospects. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged

51 years, Hence, loss of earning capacity for the appellant is

calculated by applying proper multiplier '11', which comes to

Rs.11,97,900/-. (16,500x12x11x 55/100).

9. As far as the other compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under the other heads viz., Pain and suffering and mental agony,

Transportation expenses, nutrition expenses, damages to clothes,

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

attender charges, loss of amenities are concerned, the same are just and

reasonable and hence they are confirmed.

10. Accordingly, the revised compensation awarded by this Court

is tabulated as under:

Sl. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by confirmed or
Tribunal this Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of earning capacity 6,67,920 11,97,900 enhanced
2. Medical expenses nil nil confirmed
3. Pain and sufferings and 40,000 40,000 confirmed
mental agony
4. Transportation 10,000 10,000 confirmed
5. Nutrition 15,000 15,000 confirmed
6. Damages to clothes 2,000 2,000 confirmed
7. Attender charges 16,000 16,000 confirmed
8 Loss of amenities 35,000 35,000 confirmed
Total 7,85,920 13,15,900 enhanced by
5,29,980

11. With the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal at Rs.7,85,920/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.13,15,900/-

together with interest at 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period,

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

if any) from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

12. 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 eight

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

deposit, the appellant/claimant shall be permitted to withdraw the