Senthilkumar @ Swaminathan v. D.Venkatesan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA C.M.A.Nos.3465 and 3466 of 2014 CMA.No.3465of 2014 Senthil Kumar @ Swaminathan ...Appellant Vs
1. D.Venkatesan
2. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Lodge President Complex, Tiruvarur Town and District.
... Respondent CMA.No.3466 of 2014 Latha ... Appellant Vs 1/10
1. D.Venkatesan
2. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Lodge President Complex, Tiruvarur Town and District.
... Respondent COMMON Prayer in CMA.Nos.3465 and 3466 of 2022: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 18.04.2012 passed in respective MCOP.Nos.3 and 4 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Tiruvarur and prayed to modify the same.
CMA.Nos.3465 and 3466 of 2022 For Appellants : M/s.M.Thamizhavel For Respondents : No Appearance (R1-Served) : Mr.Arun Kumar for R2 2/10
COMMON JUDGEMENT These two appeals arise in respect of a single accident in which the appellant in CMA.No.3465 of 2014 and the appellant in CMA.No3466 of 2014 have sustained injuries.
2. The facts briefly narrated are as follows and the parties are being referred in the same rank as before the Tribunal with the petitioners in each of the claim petitions being collectively referred to as petitioner. (i) The petitioner in MCOP.No.3 of 2012 as against which, CMA.No.3465 of 2014 has been filed and the petitioner in MCOP.No.4 of 2012 as against which CMA.No.3466 of 2014 has been filed were injured in the said accident.
(ii) The petitioner in MCOP.No.3 of 2012 was proceeding to his house after the election duty in his HERO HONDA bearing Reg.No.TN-503/10
H-9579 with his wife riding pillion (she is the petitioner in MCOP.No.4 of 2012) on the Thiruvarur to Mailaduthurai Main road at around 9.30 p.m. At that juncture, the first respondent's vehicle TVS Star City which was yet to be registered was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the vehicle, in which, the respective petitioners were travelling.
(iii) By reason of the collision, the petitioners fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries, for which, they have filed the respective claim petitions. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and he did not contest the case and it was only the Insurance Company who has filed its counter, questioning the manner of accident and contending that the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner in MCOP.No.3 of 2012. The Insurance Company had also challenged the age, income and occupation of the petitioners, they had also raised a plea that the offending vehicle was not insured with them. 4/10
3. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that the accident had occurred only on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the TVS Star City. In MCOP.No.3 of 2012, the Tribunal had granted a total compensation of Rs.1,73,383/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% and with regard to MCOP.No.4 of 2012, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,67,023/- with 7.5% interest. The petitioners were aggrieved by the compensation granted on the ground that it is inadequate. With reference to the petitioner in MCOP.No.4 of 2012 it is stated that on account of this accident, she had lost her vision in one eye and no amount have been granted in this head. That apart, the amount granted under other heads are also on the lower side.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the amount awarded is on the higher side and has to be necessarily be reduced.
5. Heard the submissions made by both the counsels and perused the 5/10
materials available on record.
6. As regards the petitioner in MCOP.No.3 of 2012 he has only suffered a fracture on his thigh and leg and there is nothing to show that he is suffering from any restriction in his day to day activities or suffered of loss of his earning capacity. The amount granted under various heads appears fair and there is no necessity to modify the same. Therefore, CMA.No.3465 of 2014 stand dismissed.
7. As regards the petitioner in MCOP.No.4 of 2012, admittedly the petitioner has lost her vision in one eye and now she has to depend on others. Even for this case, the Tribunal has not adopted the multiplier method, but has only proceeded to award a very miniscule amount as compensation.
8. Considering the loss of depreciation of an eye, the amount under the various head has to be definitely enhanced and granted, thus the 6/10
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: S.No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted or reduced 1.
Pain and suffering 60,000 80,000 Enhanced 2.
Permanent disability - 4,50,000 Granted 3.
Loss of amenities 20,000 50,000 Enhanced 4.
Transportation 2,000 10,000 Enhanced 5.
Attender charges 10,000 Granted 6.
Loss of dresses 1,000 1,000 Confirmed 7.
Medical expenses 54,023 54,023 Confirmed 9.
Future Medical Expenses 50,000 Set aside Total Rs.1,67,023/- Rs.6,55,023/- The same is rounded to Rs.6,55,100/-
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant in CMA.No.3465 of 2014 stands dismissed. As regards the appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant in CMA.No.3466 of 2014 is allowed and the compensation of Rs.1,67,023/- awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.4 of 2012 is hereby enhanced to a sum of Rs.6,55,100/- together with interest @ 7/10
7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2012 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 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the petitioner/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, by making necessary applications. The claimant is directed to pay the Court fee for the compensation amount. The Tribunal below shall not disburse the amount till such time as proof of payment of Court Fee has been produced by the claimant. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
24.11.2022 Vv/dpq Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order 8/10
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Tiruvarur
2. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Lodge President Complex, Tiruvarur Town and District.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
9/10
P.T.ASHA, J., Vv/dpq C.M.A.Nos.3465 and 3466 of 2014 24.11.2022 10/10