Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 3191 (MAD)

K. Vijayakumar v. K. Senthilnathan

2021-11-18

S.KANNAMMAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2012 made in MACT O.P.No.1865/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chennai, V Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2012 made in MACT O.P.No.1865/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, V Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. The claimant is the appellant herein. 3. The case of the claimant before the trial Court is as follows: In an accident that had occurred on 19.04.2007, at about 14.00 hrs., when the claimant was driving a mini van bearing Registration No. TSL 7984 at Koovur, near bridge, an ambulance owned by the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent Corporation was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant’s van, due to which, the claimant sustained multiple injuries. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ambulance, the claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. 4. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent denied the manner in which the accident occurred and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. Since the offending vehicle was plied without valid insurance coverage, permit, fitness certificate and the driver did not possess a valid driving license, it is the case of the 2nd respondent that the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the 2nd respondent, R.W.-1 was examined and Ex.R-1 was marked. 6. The Tribunal, on considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ambulance and awarded a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- as compensation to the Claimant. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come up with the present Appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents available on record. 8. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come up with the present Appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents available on record. 8. It is the case of Appellant/Claimant that, the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, when he was actually earning more than that per month and that, the Tribunal ought to have awarded towards pain and suffering, as the claimant sustained fracture of both bone, right leg with fracture of shaft of right femur and multiple injuries all over the body. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the compensation for loss of income during treatment period, extra nourishment, attender charges, loss of amenities, future treatment etc. Hence, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation to be enhanced under the above heads. 9. It is seen that, it is a case of injury arising out of an accident that had occurred on 19.04.2007, in which the appellant/claimant sustained injuries, which is supported by Ex.P6 - FIR. It is the finding of the Tribunal that since the application is filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant need not prove the negligence. It is not in dispute that the first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle/ambulance, which was insured with the 2nd respondent. Considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.3,000/- as his notional income, as no documents have been produced to substantiate the earning of the claimant. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimant and the surgeries undergone by him and fixed functional disability at 60% and since the claimant is the Driver by profession, granted a sum of Rs.36000 x 18 x 60 = Rs.3,88,000/-. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the treatment undergone by the claimant and granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and towards medical bills, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.6,106/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- as compensation to the claimant. 10. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the treatment undergone by the claimant and granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and towards medical bills, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.6,106/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- as compensation to the claimant. 10. The Tribunal, considering the fact that the appellant suffered injuries and had suffered shortening of right leg by 3 cm, assessed rightly the functional disability of the appellant at 60% and by calculating the notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,45,000/-, which includes pain and suffering, together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the Claim Petition till the date of deposit. 11. In the considered view of this Court, since there is no documents whatsoever filed to substantiate the monthly income of the claimant, the income has been fixed notionally and the functional disability fixed at 60%, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not require any interference at the hands of this Court, as the compensation is just and proper compensation. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the Award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1865 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chennai, V Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the Award amount directly to the Bank account of the Appellant/Claimant through RTGS, within a period of two weeks. 12. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.