Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2613 (MAD)

Ramesh v. Velayudhan

2014-08-13

R.KARUPPIAH

body2014
Judgment : 1. The appellant/claimant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.76 of 2001 for enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the claimant in the claim petition is referred to as the appellant and the respondents in the claim petition is referred to as the respondents herein. 3. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 and perused the materials available on record. 4. The appellant has filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for the injury sustained by the appellant in the Motor Accident occurred on 13.5.2000. 5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence finally held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent who is the driver of the second respondent vehicle. Therefore the third respondent who is the insurer of the second respondent vehicle is liable to pay compensation. 6. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,945/- with 9% interest and costs. Aggrieved over the above said award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 7. With regard to the negligence aspect, the appellant has examined P.W.1 as eyewitness to the occurrence and also marked Ex.B3-Copy of the First Information Report, Ex.B4-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and Ex.B5-Rough Sketch and Ex.B6-Copy of the charge sheet. No contra evidence on the side of the respondents. Therefore the tribunal has correctly discussed about the negligence aspect and held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent who is the driver of the second respondent vehicle and also held that since the vehicle is duly insured with the third respondent/Insurance Company, the third respondent is liable to pay compensation. 8. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the main contention of the appellant is that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries and P.W.2-Doctor assessed the disability at 30% and the appellant is unable to work as before accident. Therefore the award of Rs.30,000/- for disability at 30% is very low and therefore it has to be enhanced. 9. 8. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the main contention of the appellant is that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries and P.W.2-Doctor assessed the disability at 30% and the appellant is unable to work as before accident. Therefore the award of Rs.30,000/- for disability at 30% is very low and therefore it has to be enhanced. 9. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the tribunal has correctly discussed about the nature of injuries and disability and reasonable amount has been fixed for disability and there is no need to interfere with the same. 10. Admittedly, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries and taking treatment. Inspite of it, he sustained 30% disability as assessed by the Doctor. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment and disability assessed by the doctor, this Court is of the view that the above said amount is to be enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.60,000/- as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. With regard to the other heads, the Tribunal has correctly discussed and award a reasonable amount as compensation. Therefore there is no need to interfere with the above said award of the Tribunal. 11. Whileso, the learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the appellant has not filed the appeal within time and there was a delay of 340 in filing the appeal and therefore the appellant is not entitled to interest for the above said period of delay. The above said contention is correct and therefore the appellant is not entitled to interest for the above said period of delay. 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.60,945/- to Rs.90,045/- rounded to Rs.91,000/- with same interest, except for the period of delay of 340 days in preferring the appeal. No costs.