Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3264 (MAD)

P. Devipriya v. N. Chellamuthu

2022-09-13

V.M.VELUMANI, V.SIVAGNANAM

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.7488 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Full Additional In-charge of II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 16.03.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.7488 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Full Additional In-charge of II Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The appellant is claimant in M.C.O.P.No.7488 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Full Additional Incharge of II Court of Small Causes, Chennai. She filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.94,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 20.09.2017. 3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company being insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.27,97,000/- as compensation to the appellant. 4. Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come out with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the accident, the appellant suffered crush injuries on right lower limb and foot, crush degloving injury on the left ankle and foot with medical malleolus fracture on left side. The Medical Board examined the appellant and certified that she has suffered 80% disability. The right leg below knee of the appellant was amputated and due to the injuries, she could not do the work as she was doing earlier. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the disability at 100%. At the time of accident, the appellant was taking tuition and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. The Tribunal has not granted any enhancement towards future prospects and granted meagre amounts towards pecuniary loss. The appellant has taken treatment as in-patient in the hospital for more than 27 days. At the time of accident, the appellant was taking tuition and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. The Tribunal has not granted any enhancement towards future prospects and granted meagre amounts towards pecuniary loss. The appellant has taken treatment as in-patient in the hospital for more than 27 days. The compensation granted by the Tribunal towards attendant charges is meagre. The Tribunal has not granted any amounts towards loss of amenities, loss of marital prospects and future medical expenses. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are also meagre and prayed for enhancement of compensation. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contended that the appellant has not proved that she suffered 100% disability. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not meagre. The appellant has not made out any case for enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent further submitted that the 2nd respondent has not filed any appeal challenging the award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him either in person or through counsel. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and perused the entire materials on record. 9. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the appellant that in the accident, she has suffered crush injuries on right lower limb and foot, crush degloving injury on the left ankle and foot with medical malleolus fracture on left side. Due to the injuries, the right leg of the appellant below knee was amputated. The Medical Board after examining the appellant, assessed and certified that she has suffered 80% disability and issued disability certificate, which was marked as Ex.C1. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has not let in any evidence to disprove the nature of injuries and disability assessed by the Medical Board. The Tribunal taking into consideration the disability assessed by the Medical Board, fixed the disability at 80% and adopted multiplier method for awarding compensation towards pecuniary loss, which is in order. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has not let in any evidence to disprove the nature of injuries and disability assessed by the Medical Board. The Tribunal taking into consideration the disability assessed by the Medical Board, fixed the disability at 80% and adopted multiplier method for awarding compensation towards pecuniary loss, which is in order. The appellant has claimed that she was aged 24 years at the time of accident, she was taking tuition and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. She did not file any document to prove the said claim. In the absence of any material with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal fixed notional income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2017. The monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. Considering the age and nature of work done by the appellant, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month is fixed as notional income of the appellant. The Tribunal following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC (Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), rightly applied multiplier 18'. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others], the appellant is entitled to 40% enhancement towards future prospects. In view of the above, a sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of future prospects is set aside. By fixing a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly income of the appellant and granting 40% enhancement towards future prospects, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pecuniary loss is modified to Rs.24,19,200/- (Rs.10,000/- + 4000 [Rs.10,000/- X 40%] X 12 X 18 X 80/100). 9(i). The appellant has taken treatment as in-patient in MIOT Hospital, Chennai, from 20.09.2017 to 16.10.2017, she has again taken treatment for one day on 11.11.2017 and underwent surgery. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment taken and disability suffered by the appellant, the compensation granted by the Tribunal towards pain & suffering, transportation and attendant charges are hereby enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.7,000/- to Rs.25,000/- respectively, as the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are meagre. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment taken and disability suffered by the appellant, the compensation granted by the Tribunal towards pain & suffering, transportation and attendant charges are hereby enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.7,000/- to Rs.25,000/- respectively, as the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are meagre. Considering the fact that the right leg below knee of the appellant was amputated and she would have incurred expenses for fixing artificial leg, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards fixation of artificial leg. Considering the age of the appellant and her right leg was amputated, her marital prospects will be reduced and hence, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted towards loss of marital prospects. In view of granting compensation towards pecuniary loss by adopting multiplier method, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation towards loss of amenities. The appellant has not produced any document to prove that she is still taking treatment and therefore, she is not entitled to any compensation towards future medical expenses. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and proper and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: S.No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted or reduced 1. Pecuniary loss 13,82,400 24,19,200 Enhanced 2. Pain and Suffering 40,000 50,000 Enhanced 3. Transportation 5,000 10,000 Enhanced 4. Medical Expenses 12,92,589 12,92,589 Confirmed 5. Extra Nourishment 20,000 20,000 Confirmed 6. Attendant Charges 7,000 25,000 Enhanced 7. Loss of future Prospects 50,000 - Set aside 8. Fixation of artificial leg - 2,00,000 Granted 9. Loss of marital Prospects - 1,00,000 Granted Total 27,96,989 Rounded off to 27,97,000 41,16,789 rounded off to 41,17,000 Enhanced by Rs.13,20,000/- 10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.27,97,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.41,17,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if any) from the date of petition till the date of deposit. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.27,97,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.41,17,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if any) from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant is directed to pay the necessary Court fee on the enhanced award amount, if any. No costs.