Jahir Ahamed v. A.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 101.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.M.A.No.519 of 2013 Jahir Ahamed .. Appellant Vs.
1. A.Raja (R1 was set ex-parte in the trial Court)
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.6, 6th Floor, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
.. Respondents Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2012 made in MACT. OP.No.2469 of 2010 on the file of the VI Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court) Chennai. For Appellant :
Mr.C.Munusamy For Respondents :
Mr.G.Vasudevan R2
J U D G M E N T
This appellant/claimant has come forward with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by challenging the decree and judgment dated 03.09.2012 in MACT. OP.No.2469 of 2010 passed by the VI Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court) Chennai
2.Brief fact which are necessary for disposal of this appeal is as follows:- On 15.06.2010 at about 6.45 hrs., when the appellant was driving his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 19 3234, at the time, the load auto bearing Reg. No. TN 07 AP 5253, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner hit against the appellant vehicle. As a result of the accident, the appellant, aged about 27 years, at the time of accident, sustained grievous injuries. Thereby, the appellant/claimant has filed a claim Petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the owner of the vehicle and its insurer and the same was taken on file in MCOP. No.2469 of 2010.
3. Before the Tribunal, during trial, in order to prove the case, on the side of the appellant, two witnesses were examined viz., PW1 and PW2 and marked 6 documents viz., Exs.P1 to P6, On the side of the respondent/Insurance company, no witness was examined and documents was marked. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- each in total Rs.60,000/-as compensation to the claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards disability when the Doctor who assessed the disablement of the petitioner as 40% was examined as PW2 and he marked the disability certificate and X Ray as Exs.P4 & 5 respectively. The Tribunal did not consider the gravity of injuries as well as impact and consequences of the injuries and no award has been passed under the heads of loss of income and mental agony to the family members and loss of amenities.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company submitted that the first respondent has no valid insurance policy for the offending vehicle on the date of accident and the the appellant has sustained only simple injuries and therefore, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation towards disability is reasonable and this Court may dismiss the appeal.
6. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. The factum of the accident is not disputed by the parties and so also the liability. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. The only grievance of the claimant is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded.
8. On perusal of the award, it is seen that the appellant, before the Tribunal, except, A.R. Copy, the appellant has not produced any medical records. The Doctor has assessed 40% disability to the appellant but the appellant sustained only simple injuries and the medical records was not produced before the trial. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed 20% disability and rightly awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- which does not warrant any interference. The compensation awarded under other heads are just and reasonable.
9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, after deducting the amount if any already deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, recover the amount from the first respondent. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application before the Tribunal. No costs.
01.11.2023 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes rli To The VI Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court) Chennai.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
Rli C.M.A.No.519 of 2013 01.11.2023