← Library
Madras High CourtCMA/2450/2019partly allowed

M.M.Rajan v. N.Prahalad

2021-04-15Honourable Mr Justice C. Saravanan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.04.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN C.M.A.NO.2450 OF 2019 M.M.Rajan, S/o.Manickam ... Appellant Vs.

1. N.Prahalad

2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Motor Third Party Hub, Silingi Building, 4th Floor, No.134, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.

... Respondents Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.3955 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Petitions) Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondents :

For R1 : Set exparte For R2 : Mr.M.J.Vijaya Raghavan

JUDGMENT

The claimant is the appellant in this appeal and is aggrieved by the impugned Judgement and decree dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Petitions) Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.3955 of 2016.

2. By the impugned Judgment and decree, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,34,000/- as compensation under the following heads:- Heads of Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Disability Rs.30,000/- Pain and Sufferings Rs.25,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs.15,000/- Transportation Rs.5,000/- Medical Bills Rs.2,15,726/- Attender Charges Rs.2,250/- Loss of Earnings Rs.21,000/- Loss of Future Prospectus Rs.20,000/- Total Compensation is fixed at Rs.3,33,976/- Rounded off to Rs.3,34,000/-

3. The appellant/claimant has challenged the impugned Judgment and decree on the ground that the Tribunal has restricted the disability at 10% at Rs.3,000/- per percentage merely on the ground that the Doctor namely P.W.2 was not the person who had given treatment to the appellant/claimant. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation at Rs.5,000/- per percent at 30% disability as was deposed by P.W.2-Doctor and in the Disability Certificate in Ex.P.12. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre compensation of Rs.21,000/- towards loss of earning for a period of three months alone at Rs.7,000/- as notional monthly income to the appellant/claimant.

4. Defending the impugned Judgment and decree, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has passed a proper order and there was no irregularity in the reasonings given by the Tribunal and therefore the appeal filed by the appellant was liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company further submitted that P.W.2 was a stock witness and therefore the report/Disability Certificate in Ex.P.12 and the deposition of P.W.2 was exaggerated and therefore the Tribunal has correctly awarded at 10% disability. It is further submitted that the appellant/claimant had suffered tibia fracture on his left leg and therefore hospitalized only for 9 days involved surgery in Tibia and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal was correct/well-reasoned and requires no interference.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the second respondent. I have perused the impugned Judgment and decree and the records which forms the basis of the aforesaid award before the Tribunal.

7. As per Ex.P12-Disability Certificate, the appellant/claimant suffered 30% disability whereas the Tribunal has considered only 10% on the ground that P.W.2 was not the person who treated the appellant/claimant.

8. In my view, the Disability Certificate given by the expert cannot be ignored without any proper reasonings. In any event, the Tribunal is required to ascertain the functional disability while awarding compensation. Since there is no proper discussion on the same, I am inclined to consider 20% disability at Rs.5,000/- per percentage, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant was aged about 65 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards disability is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.

9. The appellant/claimant is stated to be a owner of Tea Stall, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.21,000/- towards loss of earning. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant, it would be fair to conclude that the appellant/claimant would have been out of action atleast for a period of six months. Therefore, the amount awarded towards future prospects is enhanced to Rs.42,000/- i.e., Rs.7,000/-x6= Rs.42,000/-.

10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as follows:-

Sl.No .

Heads of Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or enhanced or reduced or granted or set aside 1.

Disability Rs.30,000/- Rs.1,00,000 /- Enhanced 2.

Pain and Sufferings Rs.25,000/- Rs.

25,000/- Confirmed 3.

Extra Nourishment Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Confirmed 4.

Transportati on Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Confirmed 5.

Medical Bills Rs.2,15,726/- Rs.2,15,726 /- Confirmed 6.

Attender Charges Rs. 2,250/- Rs.2,250/- Confirmed 7.

Loss of Earnings Rs. 21,000/- Rs.21,000/- Confirmed 8.

Loss of Future Prospectus Rs. 20,000/- Rs.42,000/- Enhanced Total Rs.3,33,976/- Rounded off to Rs.3,34,000/- Rs.4,25,976 /- Rounded off to Rs.4,26,000 /- Enhanced by Rs.92,000/-

11. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is therefore directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.4,26,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the claim petition till the date of such deposit, less any amount already deposited by it, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

12. On such deposit being made by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same together with interest accrued thereon, less any amount already withdrawn in the same proportion as was ordered by the Tribunal.

13. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed with the above observations. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar arb To:

1. The Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.1, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madras High Court.

C.M.A.No.2450 of 2019 SSV(CO) RLP(25/10/2021)