Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2819 (MAD)

S. Azhagan v. A. Udayakumar

2014-08-22

R.SUBBIAH

body2014
Judgment 1. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes), Chennai, in and by award dated 20.12.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.3550 of 2012, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. Since the present appeal has been filed only challenging the quantum of compensation, this Court is not dealing with the other aspects of the award passed by the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on 23.06.2011, about 15.00 hours, while he was riding his motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-22BP-5267 along with his son, another motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-07BA-1931, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle which the claimant was riding. In the said accident, the he had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the appellant/claimant herein made a claim for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation, against the respondents. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte. 5. The claim made by the claimant was resisted by the Insurance Company, by filing a counter statement, denying the manner of accident, as stated in the claim petition and their consequential liability to pay compensation. In the counter statement, it has been further stated that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler by the claimant. Without prejudice to the above defence, the Insurance Company has disputed the age, income, nature of injuries and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads in the claim petition. 6. In order to prove the claim, the appellant/claimant examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the manner of accident, as stated in the claim petition and one Doctor Saravana Bhavan as PW2, who had assessed the disability as 30% and 11 documents have been marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. But, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on the side of the Insurance Company. 7. After analysing the entire evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the rider of the two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN-07BA-1931, was responsible for causing the accident. But, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on the side of the Insurance Company. 7. After analysing the entire evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the rider of the two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN-07BA-1931, was responsible for causing the accident. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal, by calculating the compensation, has passed an award for a total sum of Rs.1,78,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of claim, till the date of realisation. The Break up details are as follows: Loss of income Rs.18,000/- Transport to Hospital Rs. 7,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 7,000/- Damage to clothes Rs. 1,000/- Medical expenses Rs.50,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/- Loss amenities Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- Permanent disability Rs.60,000/- Total Rs.1,78,000/- Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the injured victim is aged about 58 years and he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month, by running a Tea shop. The Tribunal has failed to consider the nature of injuries sustained by the injured. PW2 Doctor has assessed the disability as 30%. Considering the nature of injuries and disability suffered by the victim, the compensation of Rs.1,78,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, proper enhancement has to be made in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully perused the materials available on record and I find that the claimant had sustained fracture on his third toe of the left foot, wound debridement, primary suturing and K-wire fixation of third toe of left foot was done. PW2 Doctor had assessed the disability as 30%. Considering the evidence of PW2 and the percentage of disability, I do not find any infirmity in the amount awarded under various heads except the amount awarded under the head loss of amenities and attendant charges. The Tribunal has awarded a lesser amount under the head loss of amenities. Considering the fact that on account of the disability suffered by the claimant, he would find it difficult to carry on his day to day works before the accident, a sum of Rs.5,000/-awarded under the head loss of amenities is hereby enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a lesser amount under the head loss of amenities. Considering the fact that on account of the disability suffered by the claimant, he would find it difficult to carry on his day to day works before the accident, a sum of Rs.5,000/-awarded under the head loss of amenities is hereby enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Similarly, a sum of Rs.5,000/-awarded under the head attendant charges is hereby enhanced to Rs.7,000/-. Except the above modifications, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. Consequently, the compensation amount of Rs.1,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby modified and enhanced to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The break up details of the modified/enhanced compensation amount are as follows: Loss of income Rs.18,000/- Transport to Hospital Rs. 7,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 7,000/- Damage to clothes Rs. 1,000/- Medical expenses Rs.50,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 7,000/- Loss amenities Rs.25,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- Permanent disability Rs.60,000/- Total Rs.2,00,000/- 10. With the above modification, the Appeal is partly allowed. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, after deducting the amount if any already deposited, with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of the abovesaid MCOP, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount, now determined, by making necessary applications. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.