Madras High Court
S.Balaraman vs S.R.M.Institute Of Science And ... on 19 February, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
2025:MHC:474
C.M.A.No.1915 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 18 / 12 / 2024
Pronounced on 19 / 02 / 2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A.NO.1915 OF 2022
S.Balaraman ... Appellants / Petitioner
-vs-
1. S.R.M.Institute of Science and Technology,
Rep. by its Chairman,
SRM Nagar, Kattangulathur,
Chengalpattu Taluk,
Kancheepuram District-603 203.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Claims Hub Chennai,
Macmilan House, 2nd Floor,
No.21, Pattullos Road 'B' Wing,
Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Respondents / Respondents
Note: The 1st respondent was set ex-parte on 05.01.2018 before the
Tribunal
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to enhance the compensation awarded vide
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1915 of 2022
Award dated August 18, 2021 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.6593 of 2017 on
the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No.2, Motor
Accident Claims Petition) Small Causes Court, Chennai and consequently,
award M.A.C.T.O.P.No.6593 of 2017 as prayed for.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.L.Narayanan
For R1 : Mr.R.Gokul for
Mrs.P.R.Umamaheswari
For R2 : Mr.R.Rajesh
JUDGMENT
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated August 18, 2021 passed
in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.6593 of 2017 on the file of 'Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No.2, Motor Accident Claims Petition) Small
Causes Court, Chennai' (in short 'Tribunal'), the appellant / claimant therein
has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to
as per their array in the Original Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Brief facts put forth by the Claimant
3. The case of the claimant is that on August 30, 2016 at about
07.30 a.m., while the he was travelling in his motorcycle bearing
Registration No.TN-10-K-4530 at K.K.Nagar, Nesappakkam, Thiruvalluvar
Road Junction in east to west direction, the SRM College bus bearing
Registration No. TN-19-AB-0823, driven in a rash and negligent manner in
the same direction i.e., from east to west, dashed against him, on account of
which, he had sustained grievous injury. The accident had occurred due to
the fault of the driver of the bus. The 1st respondent is the owner of the bus
and the bus was insured with the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company.
Stating that the respondents are vicariously liable to pay compensation to
the claimant, a claim Petition was filed before the Tribunal, seeking
compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) restricted to
Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) from the respondents.
Case of the Second Respondent
4. At the first blush, the involvement of the 1 st respondent's bus
in the alleged accidence was denied and it is stated that on the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accident, the driver of the 1st respondent's bus had no valid and effective
license to drive the bus. The claimant has to prove the injuries sustained by
him, nature of injuries, nature of treatment, period of treatment, age, income
and disability through proper documentary and oral evidence. Stating that
the amount of compensation claimed is unsustainable, the 2nd respondent
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
Tribunal
5. Before the Tribunal, claimant was examined as P.W.1 and
Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.11 were marked by him. On the side of the 2nd respondent,
neither any witness was examined nor any exhibit was marked. The
Disability Certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board, Government
Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai was marked as Ex-C.1.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on
record, held that the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle is responsible for
the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the 2nd respondent /
Insurance Company, being insurer of the 1st respondent's bus, is liable to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pay the compensation to the petitioner/claimant.
7. With regard to quantum of compensation, the claimant stated
that he worked as Field Executive in Innovsource Pvt. Ltd., Guindy and
earned a sum of Rs.12,871/- per month at the time of accident and in proof
thereof, he produced the appointment order (Ex-P.1), ID card (Ex-P.2) and
the salary slip (Ex-P.3) for the month May, 2016. Hence, the Tribunal, upon
considering the percentage of disability of the claimant at 45% and also
taking note of the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2016, fixed
Rs.5,000/- per percentage and computed the compensation as stated below:-
Sl.No. Head Amount
1. Disability Rs.2,25,000/-
2. Pain and Sufferings Rs.40,000/-
3. Transportation Rs.4,000/-
4. Extra Nourishment Rs.15,000/-
5. Attender Charges Rs.36,000/-
6. Loss of Earnings Rs.63,905/-
Total Rs.3,83,905/-
Rounded off to Rs.3,84,000/-
8. Feeling aggrieved by the meagre quantum of compensation
awarded, the claimant has filed the Civil Miscellaneous appeal praying for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
enhancement of compensation amount.
Arguments
9. Mr.P.L.Narayanan, learned Counsel for the appellant /
claimant would submit that though as per Ex-C.1 - Disability Certificate
issued by the Regional Medical Board, the claimant sustained 45%
permanent disability, since his job requires driving of two wheelers and four
wheelers and since his left leg has been deformed with a bent, he cannot
continue his job till his lifetime and therefore, he suffered 100% functional
disability. He would further submit that the Tribunal ought to have applied
multiplier method in arriving at a just and fair compensation and the
Tribunal failed to consider the loss of future earning capacity. The next
level of promotion to the claimant was Field Supervisor and in that case, his
salary would have definitely been increased and the Tribunal has not taken
into consideration the future prospects of earning while awarding the
compenation. In support of his submission, he has referred to the Judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sidram -vs- Divisional
Manager, United Indian Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2023)
3 SCC 439 and Rahul Ganpatrao Sable -vs- Laxman Maruti Jadhav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(Dead) through Lrs., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 780. Stating that the
income fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side, learned counsel for the
appellant / claimant prayed for enhancement of the compensation.
10. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent / Insurance Company would argue that though the claimant /
petitioner averred that he was working as a Field Executive, no concrete
evidence was produced to substantiate that he sustained 100% functional
disability. In such a view, the Tribunal was right in adopting calculation
based on percentage method. There is no illegality or infirmity with the said
findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the learned Counsel prayed to
dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous appeal.
Discussion
11. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the
evidence and materials available on record.
12. There is no dispute with regard to factum of the accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the involvement of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-10-K-
4530 and the bus bearing Registration No.TN-19-AB-0823. The core
contention of the 2nd respondent was that the claimant, who drove the
motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, was solely responsible for the
accident. On perusal of Ex-P.10 - First Information Report (FIR) and the
oral evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that the driver of the 1st respondent’s
vehicle was alleged to be the main cause for the accident, and the same had
not been controverted by the 2nd respondent. Though the 2nd respondent had
taken a stand that the driver of the bus did not have a valid license, the valid
driving licence of the bus driver was marked as Ex-P.7 and the claimant also
had a valid driving licence that has been marked as Ex-P.6. Thus, the
Tribunal rightly arrived at a decision that the accident happened due to the
rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s bus and it being insured
with 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation. It is
also to be noted that the 2nd respondent did not prefer any appeal against the
findings of the Tribunal, hence, the findings of the Tribunal in respect of
negligence attained finality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. As regards quantum, the claimant averred that he was
appointed as a Field Executive in Innovsource Private Limited on October
13, 2015 and was earning a sum of Rs.12,871/- per month/-. He has not
produced any medical evidence to substantiate that due to the injuries
sustained by him, he cannot go for any other employment. However, the 2nd
respondent has not denied the nature of job undertaken by the claimant
before the accident. As per the directions of this Court, the claimant
appeared in person and this Court had an opportunity to observe the current
condition of the claimant. In Ex-P.9 – Disability Certificate dated July 11,
2018 issued by Regional Medical Board, Royapettah Government Hospital,
Chennai, which assess the disability of the claimant as 45% permanent
disability, it has been noted as follows:
“Patient H/o RTA & Sustained Grade III B compound
injury fracture both bone Distal 1/3 leg. Illizarov fixator
with Corticotomy with Bone transport with Flap cover
done Ankle Arthrodesis done. Shortening 2 cm”
13.1. In Ex-C.1 – Disability Certificate dated December 17,
2020 issued by Regional Medical Board, Government Kilpauk Medical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
College Hospital, Chennai, which also assess the claimant’s disability as
45% permanent disability, it has been noted as follows:
“RTA – post traumatic sequala left lower limb, fracture of distal
tibia, navicular talus”
13.2. From Ex-P.9 and Ex-C.1 as well as from the direct
observation of the leg injury sustained by the claimant, this Court is of the
view that due to the injuries sustained in the accident and the consequent
reduced length of leg, he suffers from mobility issues and joint stiffness. He
would not be able to walk / sit easily, climb stairs, drive/ride vehicles as
before etc. The injuries would have a direct impact on his earning capacity.
Considering the same, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to adopt
multiplier method. The Tribunal has failed to do so, which is not justifiable.
Functional disability has to be considered keeping in mind the nature of job
of the injured, his age and other facts and attending circumstances of the
case. In view of Ex-P.9 and Ex-C.1, also bearing in mind that the claimant
was employed as a Field Supervisor, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the claimant suffers from 45% functional disability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. The next line of argument put forth by the learned counsel
for the appellant/claimant by relying on the cases cited supra is that the
Tribunal ought to have awarded future prospects. The same cannot be
brushed aside easily. Considering the fact that at the time of accident the
claimant was 47 years old, applying 25% increase for future prospects and
applying multiplier of 13 along with 45% of functional disability, as per the
Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi
Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, and
National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, this Court arrives at a sum of Rs.11,29,430/- as
compensation under the head ‘loss of earning capacity’.
15. The Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and
sufferings to the claimant, which is on the lower side and hence, the same is
enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- Considering that the mobility of the claimant has
been seriously impaired, the compensation awarded for transportation
charges is increased from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Likewise, the
compensation awarded for extra nourishment is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-
and that awarded for attender charges is enhanced to Rs.60,000/-. Since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
multiplier method has been adopted to arrive at a compensation, there is no
need to award separately under the head 'disability'. Further, in view of the
nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the resulting
discomforts and hardships, this Court deems fit to award Rs.2,00,000/-
towards loss of amenities.
16. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to get enhanced
compensation of Rs.17,89,400/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Eighty-Nine
Thousand and Four Hundred). The revised compensation is as detailed
below:-
Sl.No. Head Amount
1. Loss of Earning Rs.11,29,430/-
(Rs.12,871/- + 25% x 12 x 13 x 45%)
2. Pain and Sufferings Rs.3,00,000/-
3. Transportation Rs.50,000/-
4. Extra Nourishment Rs.50,000/-
5. Attender Charges Rs.60,000/-
6. Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Rs.17,89,430/-
Rounded off to Rs.17,89,400/-
17. Therefore, the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
directed to deposit the enhanced award amount of Rs.17,89,400/- (Rupees
Seventeen Lakh Eighty-Nine Thousand and Four Hundred) along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the
date of deposit, to the credit of M.A.C.T. O.P.No.6593 of 2017 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No.2, Motor Accident
Claims Petition) Small Causes Court, Chennai, less the amount if any
already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the claimant is entitled
to withdraw the same by filing proper application. Further, the claimant is
entitled for proportionate costs and Advocate fees as per Rules. The
claimant is directed to pay necessary Court fee for the enhanced
compensation, if any.
18. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the
appellant / claimant is partly allowed with proportionate costs and a
modified Award is passed as detailed above.
(J.N.B., J.) (R.S.V., J.)
19 / 02 / 2025
Index : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
ar/tk
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
ar/tk
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Special Sub-Court No.2, Motor Accident
Claims Petition)
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
C.M.A.NO.1915 OF 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19 / 02 / 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
