Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2793 (MAD)

Devaguru v. Settu

2022-08-17

P.T.ASHA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Claiming an enhancement of the compensation granted to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam in M.C.O.P.No.147 of 2009, the petitioner before the Tribunal has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. It is the case of the appellant that when he was driving his motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY 01 Y 4965 from Tindivanam to Guruvammapettai along with one Devaraj riding pillion, a Tipper Lorry coming from Pondy to Tindivanam in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the appellant's motorcycle. The accident occurred around 10.45 A.M when the appellant was nearing the Tindivanam Jayapuram Circle. By reason of the accident, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries all over the body. 3. The appellant had claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- stating that he was a partner in a Blue Metal Crusher Firm called Boopal and Company and earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. The appellant was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident. 4. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company alone had contested the claim petition in which they had contended that the accident had occurred only on account of rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the appellant and not on account of the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent Tipper Lorry. The Insurance Company had also denied the monthly income of the appellant and stated that the quantum of compensation was excessive. Apart from the above defense, the Insurance Company had also stated that the appellant did not possess a valid licence at the time of the accident. 5. The Tribunal below held negligence on the part of the 1st respondent Tipper Lorry and proceeded to grant a compensation of a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- to the appellant. The disability was assessed on percentage basis since the disability has not resulted in a loss of earning capacity to the appellant. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Heard both the learned counsels and perused the records. 7. The appellant has produced Ex.P.16, Disability Certificate which is marked through P.W.3, Doctor, who had assessed the disability at 48%. P.W.3 who has adduced evidence would state that the appellant had restricted movement of his knee and ankle and that he is unable to squat, walk on slopes and walk over the staircase. 8. 7. The appellant has produced Ex.P.16, Disability Certificate which is marked through P.W.3, Doctor, who had assessed the disability at 48%. P.W.3 who has adduced evidence would state that the appellant had restricted movement of his knee and ankle and that he is unable to squat, walk on slopes and walk over the staircase. 8. The disability has been assessed within three months of the accident. P.W.3, Doctor, has not spoken about the fact that the disability has impaired the appellant's earning capacity. Therefore, the adoption of percentage method appears to be reasonable. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the Injury. This amount can be enhanced to a sum of Rs.48,000/-. 9. The appellant has been in and out of Hospital for about 2 months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- can be granted under the head of Transport and Extra Nourishment as against the sum of Rs.3,000/- granted towards conveyance and other expenses. Under the head of Pain and Sufferings a sum of Rs.45,000/- has been granted, which can be enhanced to a sum of Rs.60,000/-. When the appellant was in the Hospital, he must have definitely had the assistance of the attendant and a sum of Rs.15,000/- has to be granted under the head of Attender Charges. 10. The appellant would not have attended work for about four months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.30,000/- can be awarded under the head of Loss of earning at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per month. The appellant has spent a sum of Rs.4,77,000/- towards his treatment which amount has been granted by the Tribunal below and this Court is not altering the same. Therefore, the award is enhanced to a sum of Rs.6,40,000/-. 11. The award of the Tribunal below is re-worked as follows: Heads Award of the Tribunal Award of the High Court Injury Rs.40,000/- Rs.48,000/- Transport and Extra Nourishment (Conveyance and other expenses) Rs.3,000/- Rs.10,000/- Pain and Sufferings Rs.45,000/- Rs.60,000/- Attender Charges .......... Rs.15,000/- Loss of earnings .......... Rs.30,000/- Treatment Rs.4,77,000/- Rs.4,77,000/- Total Rs.5,65,000/- Rs.6,40,000/- together with interest at 7.5% p.a. 12. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.147 of 2009. Rs.30,000/- Treatment Rs.4,77,000/- Rs.4,77,000/- Total Rs.5,65,000/- Rs.6,40,000/- together with interest at 7.5% p.a. 12. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.147 of 2009. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal below stands confirmed. The appellant shall show proof of payment of the Court fees and only on such proof he shall be permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.