Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Police vs Jayaraman (Died) on 12 February, 2025
CMA.No.367 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :12.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMA .No.367 of 2025 and
C.M.P.No.2740 of 2025
The Commissioner of Police
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Chennai-07 ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Jayaraman (Died)
2.Malarkodi
3.Suruthi Priya
(sole respondent died, R2 & R3 are brought on record
as LR's of the deceased sole respondent
Viz., Jayaraman vide C/O dated 26.06.2024 made in
CMP.No.12661/2024 in CMA(Sr.No.156368/2023) ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated
11.11.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur passed in MCOP.No.235 of
2008.
For appellant : Mr.C.Sathish
Government Advocate
for Special Government Pleader(CS)
For Respondents : Mr.L.P.Balaji Ram for R2 & R3
R1- Died
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.367 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellant has come before this
Court by way of this appeal.
2. It is not in dispute that on 05.10.2007, while the claimant/ 1st
respondent was hit by the TATA Sumo vehicle owned by the appellant ,
he suffered a crush injury on the left toe. It is also not in dispute that as
a result of the injuries suffered by the 1st respondent in a road accident,
three fingers of his left leg was removed. The 1st respondent had been
in the hospital for 44 days for taking treatment. Both the learned
counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents have not advanced
any arguments on the question of liability and negligence. Hence, the
facts necessary for deciding liability and negligence have not been
considered in the present appeal.
3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence available on record,
awarded a sum of Rs.2,66,600/- towards the injuries suffered by the 1 st
respondent and aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come before
this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
accident had taken place on 05.10.2007. As per the Exhibit C1,
disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the disability of the
claimant/1st respondent was fixed at 25%. The Tribunal, without taking
into consideration the date of accident, erroneously granted Rs.3,000/-
per percentage of the disability and hence, the award passed by the
Tribunal is liable to be interfered with.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted
that as a result of the road accident, the 1st respondent/claimant suffered
a serious injury and three of his left toes were removed. Therefore, the
compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards the
disability is very much on the lower side. It is not in dispute that as a
result of the accident, the 1st respondent/claimant suffered a crush
injury and later, three of his left toes were removed by surgery.
6. The Exhibit P3, Discharge Summary would establish that the
1st respondent/claimant had taken treatment as inpatient in the hospital
from 05.10.2007 to 17.11.2007 for nearly 44 days. The Exhibit C1,
Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board would establish that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the 1st respondent suffered a disability of 25%. Having regard to the
disability suffered by the 1st respondent, the Tribunal had decided to
award Rs.3,000/- per percentage of the disability and granted a sum of
Rs.75,000/- under the head 'disability'.
7. The Exhibits P5 and P7, letter from the employer of the
claimant would establish that the claimant was disabled from attending
the work completely for 261 days from 18.01.2008 to 04.10.2008 and
he was sanctioned medical leave without pay. Taking into consideration
the said fact, the Tribunal granted Rs.1,56,600/- towards the loss of
income during treatment period. The amount of Rs.10,000/-each
awarded under the heads 'pain and suffering', 'nutrition and
transportation' are reasonable. In addition to the above mentioned sum,
the Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head 'mental agony'.
When Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head 'pain and
suffering' , further a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head 'mental agony'
is not permissible. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum
towards loss of amenities. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.10,000/-
awarded under the head 'mental agony' shall be treated as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation towards 'loss of amenities'. An amount of Rs.5,000/-
towards the attendant charges is very much reasonable having regard to
the date of accident and length of treatment.
8. Therefore, the appellant has not made out any case to interfere
with the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.02.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
nr
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
nr
CMA No.367 of 2025 and
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
