Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3278 (MAD)

Vivekanathan v. Chandran

2010-08-02

B.RAJENDRAN

body2010
Judgment :- The claimant has filed the present appeal not satisfied with the amount of Rs. 95,000/-granted by the Court below as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- made by him in the claim petition. 2. According to the claimant, on 18.12.2003 at 2.30 pm at Katpadi to Ranipet Road, near EB officer at Old Katpadi, when he was proceeding in his TVS Victor Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-20-M-2022, the lorry bearing Registration No. TAJ 5015 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent herein, was driven by its driver in a rash and regligent manner, attempted to overtake another vehicle and in that process it dashed against him. Due to the accident, he was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained multiple injuries all over his body, including fracture on his right leg below the knee and fracture on his right hand shoulder joint. Besides injuries to his person, the motor vehicle belonged to the claimant in MCOP No. 454 of 2003 was also damaged heavily. After the accident, the claimant was hospitalized in Vellore Christian Medical College and taken treatment. Therefore, for the injuries sustained, he had filed the claim petition before the court below. 3. The Court below has taken up MCOP No. 453 of 2003 filed by the claimant as also another MCOP No. 454 of 2003 filed by one Thanigaivel, who is the owner of the Motor Cycle involved in the accident, together. Since both the claim petitions arising out of same accident, both the claim petitions were taken up together and common evidence was let in before the court below. 4. On behalf of the claimant, Exs. C1 to C11 were marked, besides the claimant examined himself as CW1 and three other witnesses on his side. On behalf of the insurance company one Gnanasekaran was examined as RW1. The Court below, considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 95,000/-, which according to the claimant is meager. 5. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged 20 and he was a student studying B.E., at VIT college. Therefore, for the loss of earning power, the claimant claimed Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 60,000/-towards permanent disability. The claimant also sought for Rs. 20,000/- for the pain and suffering which he suffered due to the accident. Therefore, for the loss of earning power, the claimant claimed Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 60,000/-towards permanent disability. The claimant also sought for Rs. 20,000/- for the pain and suffering which he suffered due to the accident. The Doctor who examined the claimant has assessed the disability at 60% under Ex.C3. Further, because of the accident, the claimant could not ride bicycle or take part in any extra curricular activities or sports. But the Court below, with regard to the age and nature of sports. But the Court below, with regard to the age and nature of injuries or the disability assessed by the Doctor has only granted a sum of Rs. 95,000/- which is meager and liable to be interfered with by this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the claimant had only sustained abrassions and he was hospitalized only for four days. Considering the evidence on record, the Court below has granted Rs. 60,000/-towards permanent disability besides awarding a sum of 10,000/-towards pain and suffering and Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses, even though medical bills to the tune of Rs. 7,985/- alone was produced. In any event, the compensation awarded by the court below in favour of the claimant cannot be said to be meager or unreasonable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. The Court below, taking into considering the entire evidence on record has found that the claimant was 20 years old at the time of accident and even though he sustained fracture injuries, considering the disability certificate issued by the Doctor at 60%, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per percentage of disability and rightly arrived at a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards permanent disability. The amount awarded by the Court below at Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs. 20,000/-towards medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards extra nourishment, cannot to said to be very low. In fact, the claimant has produced only medical bills to the tune of Rs. 7,985/-but the court below has granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on the ground that the claimant may require treatment to be taken in future, even though it was seriously disputed by the counsel for the insurance company. In any event, the award amount of Rs. In fact, the claimant has produced only medical bills to the tune of Rs. 7,985/-but the court below has granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on the ground that the claimant may require treatment to be taken in future, even though it was seriously disputed by the counsel for the insurance company. In any event, the award amount of Rs. 95,000/- awarded by the court below is in consonance with the nature of injuries and period of treatment undergone by the claimant and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.