Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3019 (MAD)

CITTIBABU v. D. JAYAPRAKASH

2018-09-18

ABDUL QUDDHOSE

body2018
JUDGMENT ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arni by its Award dated 27.11.2009 in M.C.O.P.No.182 of 2008. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows: 2. The Appellant sustained injuries as a result of an accident that took place on 05.06.2008, caused by a lorry bearing registration No.TDJ 2196 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The Appellant preferred a compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.182 of 2008 seeking a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him as a result of the accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its Award dated 27.11.2009 in M.C.O.P.No.182 of 2008 directed the second respondent to pay the Appellant a sum of Rs. 65,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization and also awarded costs. 3. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under its Award dated 27.11.2009 in M.C.O.P.No.182 of 2008, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.T.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the second respondent insurance company. 5. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, the Appellant sustained fractures in his left leg and also sustained crush injuries. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, the Appellant was an electrician and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/-, at the time of the accident, but the Tribunal has erroneously not considered the same and has awarded only a lump sum compensation of Rs. 65,000/- to the Appellant. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards transportation costs and extra nourishment charges. Further the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the compensation awarded towards the Appellant's disability and pain and suffering is not an adequate compensation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that even though the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Appellant is a lump sum compensation, it is a just compensation, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that even though the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Appellant is a lump sum compensation, it is a just compensation, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant. Further the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that no document was produced by the Appellant before the Tribunal to establish that he was an electrician and earning a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/-. 7. This Court after having considered the materials available on record and after examining the impugned Award and after hearing the submissions of the respective counsels, observes the following: (a) In his claim petition, the Appellant pleaded that he was an electrician and earning a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/- at the time of the accident. No contra evidence has also been produced by the second respondent insurance company before the Tribunal to disprove the said statement. (b) The nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant has not been disputed by the second respondent insurance company before the Tribunal. (c) The accident happened in the year 2008. Considering the year of the accident and also considering the age and the nature of avocation pleaded by the Appellant in his claim petition, the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation towards his disability. Though the Appellant has produced the disability certificate which was marked as Ex.P5 before the Tribunal which discloses that he suffered 40% disability, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards the disability suffered by the Appellant. In the considered view of this Court, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- instead of Rs. 60,000/- towards his disability. (d) As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant, the Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation towards transportation cost and extra nourishment charges, for which, the Appellant is entitled to. This Court is of the considered view that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has to be awarded towards transportation cost and also a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- has to be awarded towards extra nourishment charges. (e) In the considered view of this Court, the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is also meagre and it has to be enhanced from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has to be awarded towards transportation cost and also a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- has to be awarded towards extra nourishment charges. (e) In the considered view of this Court, the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is also meagre and it has to be enhanced from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was awarded by the Tribunal towards disability for simple injury to the Appellant, which in the considered view of this court he is not entitled to. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal as regards compensation towards disability for simple injury is set aside. 8. In the light of the above observations, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned Award dated 27.11.2009 passed in MCOP.No.182 of 2008 has to be enhanced in the following manner: Heads Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Modified Award Amount For Disability Rs.60,000/- Rs.80,000/- Pain & Suffering Rs.2,500/- Rs.10,000/- Simple Injury Rs.2,500/- Nil Transportation cost Nil Rs.5,000/- Extra Nourishment Nil Rs.5,000/ Total Rs.65,000/ Rs.1,00,000/- 9. In the result, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the Award amount from Rs. 65,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- and the second respondent is directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of deposit, after deducting the amount that has already been deposited, to the credit of MCOP.No.182 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arni, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.182 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arni, along with accrued interest by filing an appropriate application. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed without costs.