Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3114 (MAD)

T. Ponnudurai v. Ramesh

2018-09-20

ABDUL QUDDHOSE

body2018
JUDGMENT Abdul Quddhose, J. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Small Causes Court at Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.3935 of 2005. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows:- (i) The Appellant sustained injuries on 04.08.2005 as a result of an accident caused by a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-07-A-7350 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. (ii) The Appellant preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.3935 of 2009, seeking a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. (iii)The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its Award dated 10.09.2009 in M.C.O.P.No.3935 of 2005, directed the second respondent to pay the Appellant a sum of Rs. 1,25,900/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization. 3. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard, Mr.T.G.Balachandran, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, learned Counsel for the second respondent. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Tribunal has erroneously not applied the multiplier method in assessing the disability, even though, the Appellant who was a salesman in a shop was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/- at the time of the accident and had suffered 50% permanent disability. 6. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the salary certificate of the Appellant from his employer was marked as Exhibit P9 before the Tribunal. But the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the monthly income of the Appellant only at Rs. 4,000/- even though, he was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/- at the time of the accident. 7. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Tribunal also not adequately compensated the Appellant towards transport charges, extra nourishment charges, pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Further, he would contend that no compensation was awarded by the Tribunal towards future medical expenses and loss of earning capacity. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company would submit that considering the age of the Appellant and considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the Appellant as a result of the accident, the Tribunal has awarded a just compensation to the Appellant. 9. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company would submit that considering the age of the Appellant and considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the Appellant as a result of the accident, the Tribunal has awarded a just compensation to the Appellant. 9. This Court after having considered the materials available on record and after examining the impugned Award and after personally having seen the Appellant in the open Court and after hearing the submissions of the respective Counsels observes the following: (a) It is an undisputed fact that the accident happened only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle insured with the second respondent Insurance Company. (b) The Appellant has produced the disability certificate which assessed his disability at 50%, which was also marked as Ex.P9 by the Tribunal. (c) The Appellant has also filed the discharge summary from the Government General Hospital as well as from the Private Hospital which were marked as Exs.P2 and P3 before the Tribunal. The salary certificate of the Appellant issued by Meenakshi store at Adyar, Chennai, who was his employer at the time of the accident was also marked as Ex.P7 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also examined two witnesses on his side namely, himself as well as his Doctor PW2. On the side of the second respondent, no document was filed and no witness was examined. 10. This Court after having seen the Appellant in the open Court today, is convinced that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned Award has to be enhanced since adequate compensation was not granted to the Appellant by the Tribunal. 11. In the result, the Award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP No.3935 of 2005 dated 10.09.2009, is enhanced in the following manner: S.No Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Modified amount 1 Loss of earnings 04.08.2005 to 03.02.2006 (Rs.4,000/-x 5 months) Rs.20,000/- Rs.27,000/- (Rs.4,500/-x6m) 2 Transport to hospital Rs.2,000/- Rs.7,000/- 3 Extra Nourishment Charges Rs.2,000/- Rs.7,500/- 4 Damage to clothing Rs.500/- Rs.500/- 5 Medical expenses Rs.38,400/- Rs.38,400/- 6 Future Medical Expenses Nil Rs.15,000/- 7 Loss of amenities in life Rs.3,000/- Rs.25,000/- 8 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/- 9 Permanent Disability Rs.50,000/- Nil 10 Loss of earning power Nil Rs.4,500+Rs.1,125x 12x25x14=2,36,250 Total Rs.1,25,900/- Rs.3,81,650/- 12. 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 10.09.2009 in M.C.O.P.No.3935 of 2005 has to be enhanced from Rs. 1,25,900 to Rs. 3,81,650/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization. The second respondent is directed to deposit Rs. 3,81,650/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3935 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Small Causes Court at Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the Appellant is permitted to withdraw the said sum by filing an appropriate application. No costs.