Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3459 (MAD)

M. Rajiv v. N. Seshadri

2018-10-03

ABDUL QUDDHOSE

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned Award dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Sub-Court at Tirupattur, Vellore District in M.C.O.P. No. 545 of 2004. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows: (i) The appellant sustained injuries on 30.03.2004 while travelling as a pillion rider in a TVS 50 moped, which collided with a Bajaj three wheeler Mini Dor vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-29-L-1606 which resulted in the Appellant sustaining injuries. (ii) The appellant preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 545 of 2004 seeking a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the driver, owner and the insurer (second respondent) of the Mini Dor goods vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-29-L-1606. (ii) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, by its Award dated 15.07.2010 in M.C.O.P. No. 545 of 2004 directed the second respondent to pay the Appellant a sum of Rs. 44,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation. 3. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation under the Award dated 15.07.2010 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 545 of 2004, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard, Mr. P.A. Sudesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Miss. R. Rathna Thara, learned Counsel for the second respondent. The first respondent has remained ex-parte before the Tribunal as well as this Court. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the compensation awarded under the impugned Award is an inadequate compensation. According to him, the Appellant was aged only 19 years at the time of the accident and was doing his second year B.Com in a college. But the Tribunal under the impugned Award has awarded only a sum of Rs. 37,000/- as disability compensation for 37% disability suffered by the Appellant. According to him, the Tribunal ought to have calculated the disability compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per percentage of disability, instead of Rs. 1,000/- per percentage of disability. 6. According to him, the accident having happened in the year 2004, the disability compensation awarded to the Appellant is very low. 7. According to him, the Tribunal ought to have calculated the disability compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per percentage of disability, instead of Rs. 1,000/- per percentage of disability. 6. According to him, the accident having happened in the year 2004, the disability compensation awarded to the Appellant is very low. 7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the second respondent would submit that the compensation awarded under the impugned Award to the Appellant is a just compensation. According to her, the Appellant was only a student at the time of the accident and therefore the compensation awarded is a just compensation. 8. 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) The Tribunal has given a clear finding that only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle insured with the second respondent, the accident had happened, which resulted in the injuries sustained by the Appellant. (b) The nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant has not been disputed by the second respondent before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the Appellant has sustained fracture on his right leg due to the injuries sustained by him and as seen from the findings of the Tribunal, there was 30% shortening of his right leg. (c) The Tribunal under the impugned Award has awarded a sum of Rs. 37,000/- towards disability compensation, Rs. 1,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 2,000/- towards extra nourishment charges, Rs. 2,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 2,000/- towards transportation costs and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 44,000/-. (d) In the considered view of this Court, the compensation towards pain and suffering and extra nourishment charges is low and the Appellant has not been adequately compensated under those heads. Further considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation towards attender charges to the Appellant. 9. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- will have to be granted towards pain and suffering, instead of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- will have to be granted instead of Rs. 2,000/- towards extra nourishment charges. This Court awards a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards the attender charges. 10. In so far as disability compensation is concerned, a sum of Rs. 37,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. 1,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- will have to be granted instead of Rs. 2,000/- towards extra nourishment charges. This Court awards a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards the attender charges. 10. In so far as disability compensation is concerned, a sum of Rs. 37,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. This Court is of the considered view, considering the year of the accident which occurred in 2004, the disability compensation calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per percentage of disability has been correctly calculated by the Tribunal under the impugned Award. Hence the amount awarded by the tribunal under the head disability is hereby confirmed. 11. The Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 545 of 2004 is enhanced in the following manner:- S. No. Amount awarded by the tribunal Amount Awarded by this Court Disability compensation Rs. 37,000/- Rs. 37,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment charges Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 4,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 2,000/- --- Transportation costs Rs. 2,000/- --- Attender charges --- Rs. 4,000/- Total Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 12. In the light of the above observations, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned Award is enhanced from Rs. 44,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim till the date of realisation. 13. In the result: (i) The appeal is partly allowed. No costs. (ii) The second respondent is directed to deposit the entire compensation awarded by this Court along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation, after deducting the amount already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 545 of 2004, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) On such deposit being made, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the said sum by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal. (iv) In so far as the findings given by the Tribunal that the second respondent is permitted to recover the compensation amount to be paid fto the Appellant from the first respondent who is the owner of the vehicle is concerned the said finding is confirmed by this Court.