Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 721 (MAD)

N. Kumudhanathan v. R. Shobana & Another

2008-02-28

R.BANUMATHI

body2008
Judgment :- Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.25,500/- for the injuries sustained by the Appellant-Claimant, the Appellant has preferred this Appeal seeking for enhancement. .2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this Appeal are as follows:- .On 21. 1998 – 8.00 hours when the Claimant was riding the cycle proceeding from south to north direction in Thulasinga Perumal koil street. At that time TVS Champ bearing registration No.TN-07-D 6279 driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction in a wrong side on the same road and dashed against the Claimant. Due to the accident, the Claimant had sustained fracture of both bones in his right hand. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of TVS Champ rider, Claimant has filed Petition U/s.166 M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. 3. Opposing the claim, the Second Respondent-Insurance company has filed counter stating that only the cyclist proceeded in the road in a careless manner and hit against the two wheeler and the Claimant himself invited the accident and therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The Insurance Company also disputed the age, income of the Claimant and also nature of injuries and nature of treatment taken by him. .4. Before the Tribunal, Claimant examined himself as P.W.1. Dr. Saichandran was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of TVS Champ and held that the Insured and Insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. On the basis of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.P.8 disability certificate, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,500/-. 5. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel Mr.Rathinamani, appearing for the Appellant-Claimant has submitted that the Claimant has sustained 30% of disability and while so, the Tribunal has awarded a very low compensation of Rs.15,000/- for Permanent Disability. Further, it was submitted that the Claimant was aged only 19 years and that he having sustained fracture injury in the right hand, the Tribunal has awarded a very low amount of Rs.5,000/-for Pain and Suffering and the learned counsel for the Appellant prayed for enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, appearing for the Second Respondent-Insurance Co. Further, it was submitted that the Claimant was aged only 19 years and that he having sustained fracture injury in the right hand, the Tribunal has awarded a very low amount of Rs.5,000/-for Pain and Suffering and the learned counsel for the Appellant prayed for enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, appearing for the Second Respondent-Insurance Co. The learned counsel has submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same need not be enhanced. 7. At the time of accident, the Claimant was studying in plus 2. Due to the accident, he sustained fracture in the right wrist. After the accident he was admitted in Royapettah Government Hospital where he had taken initial treatment. The X-ray disclosed fracture of lower radius of right hand. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that because of the fracture injury in the right hand, he could not secure good marks in plus 2. P.W.1 has further stated that even after the treatment because of the fracture in the right hand, he is not in a position to lift heavy objects. At the time when P.W.1 was examined before the Tribunal, he had stated that he was doing Diploma in Catering Technology. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that because of the fracture in the right lower radius, he finds difficult to get along with his studies in Catering Technology. 8. P.W.2 Dr.Saichandran has examined the Claimant and noticed the fracture of right radius and assessed the disability at 30%. In his evidence P.W.2 has stated that there is restriction of wrist joint and that the Claimant cannot lift heavy objects. P.W.2 has assessed the disability at 30% while so the Tribunal has awarded compensation for Permanent Disability only at Rs.15,000/-. .9. In personal injury cases, the quantum of compensation awarded has to be just and reasonable and not to be abysmally low. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the Claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as "just compensation". The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the Claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as "just compensation". The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The Supreme Court and this Court had repeatedly held that in bodily injury cases while assessing compensation, the Court should take into account all the relevant circumstances, evidence and the legal principles governing quantification of compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be only token damages. 10. Having regard to the age of the Claimant, nature of injuries, nature of treatment taken by him and the Permanent Disability, the quantum of compensation of Rs.25,500/- is enhanced to Rs.48,500/- as noted below:- 11. In the result, "The quantum of compensation of Rs.25,500/-awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.516/1999 dated 110. 2001 on the file of the VI Judge, Small Causes Court, Motor Accident claims Tribunal Chennai is enhanced to Rs.48,500/- and this C.M.A. is partly allowed. "The Compensation amount of Rs.25,500/-awarded by the Tribunal is payable with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of Petition. "The enhanced compensation of Rs.23,000/-shall be payable by the Second Respondent/ Insurance Company with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. "The Second Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal to the credit of MCOP No. 516 of 1999 on the file of VI Judge, Small Causes Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "On such deposit, the Claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest on filing necessary application before the Tribunal. There is no order as to costs in this appeal.