Madras High Court
Vigneswaran vs Ramakrishnan on 21 January, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.M.A.No.2270 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.2270 of 2018
Vigneswaran ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Ramakrishnan
2. Venkattu
3. The Divisional Manager, Divisional office,
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Mettur Road, Erode – 638 301. ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement of the award in the judgment and decree
dated 04.11.2017 passed in MCOP.No.455 of 2016 on the file of the
MACT/IV-Additional District Court, Bhavani at Erode District.
For Appellant : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel
For Respondents : Notice dispensed with, for R1 & R2
: Mrs.S.R.Sumathi, for R3
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2270 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2017 passed in
MCOP.No.455 of 2016 on the file of theMACT/IV-Additional District
Court, Bhavani at Erode District, the claimant has come up with this appeal.
2. The case of the appellant is that, on 15.04.2016 at about 08.30 pm.,
when the appellant was riding the Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing
Regn.No.TN-36-S-8408 along with one Naveen as a pillion rider in Bhavani
to Erode road, at that time, a Lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-56-2387 owned by
the 2nd respondent insured with the 3rd respondent which was driven by the
1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite
direction and dashed against the above said motorcycle, due to which, the
appellant sustained grievous injuries and got admitted in the hospital.
Thereby, the appellant filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/-. Before the tribunal, the claimant examined four witnesses
viz., P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.25 and X.1 to X.3 and on
the side of respondents, no documents were marked and no witness was
examined and the Disability Certificate was marked as Court document
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex.C.1. After trial, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, though came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place due
to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent, however,
awarded a meagre compensation of Rs.19,23,100/-. Challenging the same,
the appellant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the
compensation fixed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the above said
accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st
respondent and at the time of accident, the appellant was only aged about 22
years and was studying 2nd year B.Sc., and due to the injuries sustained by
the appellant, he sustained 60% functional disability and the same is evident
from Ex.C.1, the Disability certificate issued by the Medical Board and due
to the injuries sustained by the appellant in the above said accident, the
appellant is unable to carry on his day to day work without the help of
another person. By considering the above said facts, though the tribunal,
had rightly adopted multiplier method, however, fixed the monthly income
of the appellant as Rs.6,000/-, which is very meagre and the compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
awarded by the tribunal under other heads are also on the lower side and the
same has to necessarily be enhanced.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent
submitted that, by considering all the relevant documents, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded the compensation, which does not require any enhancement.
Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the 3rd
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the
parties. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. The only
grievance of the appellant/claimant is with regard to the quantum of
compensation awarded. It is claimed by the appellant that due to the above
said accident, the appellant sustained functional disability at the rate of
60%, however, the tribunal fixed the notional income of the appellant at
Rs.6,000/-, which is very meagre and the tribunal failed to add 40% towards
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
future prospects and thereby, the impugned award has to necessarily be
interfered with.
7. A perusal of the impugned award, particularly the disability
certificate reveals that, the appellant was aged about 22 years at the time of
accident and was studying 2nd year B.Sc., and the nature of injuries
sustained by him is of grievous in nature, and that the extent of the disability
sustained by the appellant would really hamper the appellant from
discharging his work. Hence, this Court while confirming the multiplier
method adopted by the tribunal to arrive at the compensation under the head
Disability, is of the view that the notional income of the appellant fixed at
Rs.6,000/- by the tribunal is on the lower side and necessarily the same has
to be enhanced.
8. It has been the view of the courts that even a housewife is entitled
to monthly income to be fixed for the purpose of qualifying their work for
the purpose of quantifying the amount receivable by them. Applying the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
United India Insurance Company reported in 2014 (1) TANMAC 459,
fixing a notional income of Rs.10,000/- and adding future prospects at 40%,
as has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017
(16) Supreme Court Cases 680, the total income per month is quantified at
Rs.14,000/-. The appellant being aged about 22 years, as evidenced from the
records, adopting the multiplier of 18 as fixed by the Apex Court in the case
of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the
loss of income to the family is arrived at Rs.14,000/- * 12 * 18 * 60% =
Rs.18,14,400/-.
9. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are
concerned, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded
under the head Extra nourishment, which is meagre and thereby, the same is
enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and no compensation has been awarded under the
heads Attender charges and Damages to clothes, and therefore, this Court
awards a sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively under the said
heads. At the same time, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been granted to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant under the head of "loss of amenities and marriage prospect",
which is not sustainable and the same has to be removed.
10. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is modified as under :-
Heads Awarded by the Awarded by this
Tribunal ( in Rs.) Court ( in Rs.)
Disability 7,77,600/- 18,14,400/-
Pain and suffering 50,000/- 50,000/-
Medical Bills 10,10,500/- 10,10,500/-
Extra nourishment 10,000/- 20,000/-
Transportation 25,000/- 25,000/-
Loss of amenities and marriage 50,000/- -
prospects
Attender charges - 20,000/-
Damages to clothes - 1,000/-
Total 19,23,100/- 29,40,900/-
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned Award of
the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation amount from
Rs.19,23,100/- to Rs.29,40,900/-. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the above said amount awarded by this Court to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
credit of MCOP.No.455 of 2016 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as
awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a
period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the said
amount directly to the bank account of the appellant through RTGS within a
period of two (2) weeks thereafter, upon production of necessary proof for
payment of court fee for the enhanced compensation by the tribunal. It is
underscored that the appellant is not entitled to any interest for the default
period, if any. No costs.
21.01.2025
skt
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
To:
1. The MACT/IV-Additional District Court,
Bhavani at Erode District.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt
21.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
