Sufiyan Bin Jaffer v. Smijo P.A.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN C.M.A.No.3071 of 2019 Sufiyan Bin Jaffer ... Appellant/Claimant Vs.
1.Smijo P.A 2.The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd, No.115/216, Prakasam Salai, Chennai - 600 108.
... Respondents/Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decreetal order dated 15.03.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.5837 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai (In the II Court of Small Causes, Chennai).
For Appellant : Mr.Amar D Pandiya For Respondents: Mr.V.Murali for Mr.J.Chandran for R2 R1 Not ready
JUDGMENT
The claimant is the appellant in this appeal and is aggreived by the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (In the II Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in M.C.O.P.No.5837 of 2015. 2.By the impugned judgment and decree, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,58,444/- as detailed below:- Disability Rs.1,20,000.00 Pain and Suffering Rs. 50,000.00 Extra nourishment Rs. 25,000.00 Transport to hospital Rs. 10,000.00 Damages to Clothes Rs. 1,000.00 Attender Charges Rs. 3,600.00 Medical Expenses Rs.8,18,844.00 Future Medical Expenses Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of Income Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of Amenities Rs. 10,000.00
Disability Rs.1,20,000.00 Total Rs.10,58,444.00 3.Though before the Tribunal, the appellant has made a total claim of Rs.1 crore. The appellant has now filed this appeal for a restricted enhancement of the compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and has paid the Court fee of Rs.4,375/- at the time of filing this appeal.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disproportionate with the injury suffered by the appellant and therefore prays for allowing this appeal.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. I have perused the impugned judgment and decree and exhibits which were marked before the Tribunal. 6.The Tribunal has awarded a very meagre compensation for the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant which are as follows:
(i)Head injury (ii)Left Knee Fibular Styloid process avulsion fracture (iii)Both Bones Fractures Right Leg Fracture ulna (iv)Left Superior Rami Fracture (No.of Bones Fracture 5) 7.The Tribunal has considered only 40% disability as against 75% disability assessed by P.W.2 in Ex.P8 disability certificate. This is a case where the Tribunal ought to have determined the functional disability and awarded compensation by applying multiplier method and arrived at a just compensation as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343. This exercise has not been carried out by the Tribunal. If the multiplier method was applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amount of compensation would have been much higher.
8.Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered. As the appellant has restricted the enhancement of compensation only from a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, I am inclined to allow this appeal while directing the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to deposit the aforesaid amount together with interest at 7.5% from the date of the claim petition.
9.The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.15,58,500/- [10,58,500 + 5,00,000], together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date 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 the copy of this Judgment.
10.On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw his amount together with interest as directed by the Tribunal, by filing suitable application before Tribunal. 11.The insurer of the 1st respondent's vehicle, the 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of the Bank account of the claims Tribunal directly by NEFT or RTGS mode within a period of two months from the date of this order and intimate the said deposit details to this Tribunal with a copy of the said Bank advise. 12.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed with the above observations. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CJ Conf) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jas To:
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai (In the II Court of Small Causes, Chennai).
2.The V.R.Section, Madras High Court.
+1cc to Mr.J.Chandran, Advocate, S.R.No.23424 +1cc to Mr.S.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.23286 C.M.A.No.3071 of 2019 RSV(CO) GN(12/10/2021)