Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 989 (MAD)

Ajeeth v. Akhila R. Adiga

2022-04-22

P.T.ASHA

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and Decree dated 11.04.2011 in M.C.O.P.No.440 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.) 1. The claimant/petitioner is the appellant before this Court seeking an enhancement of the compensation granted to him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, in M.C.O.P.No.440 of 2006. 2. The facts in brief which has culminated in filing of the above appeal are as follows: The petitioner who was then a minor has sustained injuries in an road accident which had taken place on 03.01.2004 at 02.00pm on Krishnagiri to Kuppam Road. It is the case of the petitioner that when he was walking on the left side of the Krishnagiri to Kuppam Road to come to his house and as he came near the Teacher Training School, a Car bearing Registration No.KA-05C-2 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and in an uncontrollable speed, had hit the minor petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner had fallen down and sustained injuries. Therefore, the petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- before the Tribunal. 3. The 1st respondent, owner of the Car remained ex parte and was set ex parte. 4. The Insurance Company had filed a counter alleging that the negligence was on the part of the petitioner, who had suddenly cross the road without any indication. Therefore, the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle cannot be held responsible for the accident. They have reserved their rights to contest the case on all grounds available to their insured by invoking the provisions of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The Tribunal held negligence exclusively on the side of the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle and proceeded to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 6. The Tribunal has disbelieved Ex.A.7 - Disability Certificate that had been issued by PW2 - Doctor since he had not treated the petitioner and he had examined the petitioner 2 1/2 years after the accident. The Tribunal however reduced the disability assessed at 25% to 15% and calculated the compensation on a percentage basis. 6. The Tribunal has disbelieved Ex.A.7 - Disability Certificate that had been issued by PW2 - Doctor since he had not treated the petitioner and he had examined the petitioner 2 1/2 years after the accident. The Tribunal however reduced the disability assessed at 25% to 15% and calculated the compensation on a percentage basis. The accident had occurred in the year 2004 and a sum of Rs.2,000/- was taken per percentage. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- under this head. A sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded for pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses, attendant charges and extra nourishment. Challenging this Award is very low, the petitioner has filed this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the papers. 8. The injuries sustained by the petitioner are only abrasions which had been set out in Column No.11 of the Claim Statement as follows: “1. Minor abrasions over the left side of chestwall- lateral aspect. 2. Minor abrasions over the knee cap region both sides. 3. Minor abrasions over the back of left iliac crest region. 4. Minor abrasions over the left wrist region. 5. Deep abrasions over the left side eye brow and temple region.” 9. Though the petitioner had himself described the injuries as abrasions PW2-Doctor who had issued the Ex.A.7 - Disability Certificate would state as follows: “TAMIL” As observed by the Tribunal, the Doctor has examined the petitioner 2 1/2 years after the accident. 10. Considering the fact that the injuries were mere abrasions and also considering the fact that the Insurance Company had not challenged the adoption of 15% towards disability, this Court finds that the Award passed by the Tribunal is very reasonable and there is no necessity to enhance the compensation as the petitioner has not sustained any lasting disability because even according to their version, they were only abrasions. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.