Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1338 (MAD)

Rengasamy v. Krishnan

2023-03-24

R.THARANI

body2023
JUDGMENT (Prayer:This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 29.06.2018, in M.C.O.P. No.45 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Special Sub Court, Dindigul.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to enhance the compensation amount in M.C.O.P. No.45 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Special Sub Court, Dindigul, dated 29.06.2018. The appellant herein is the claimant and the respondents herein are the respondents in the original M.C.O.P. Petition. 2. A brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P. No.45 of 2017, is as follows:- On 03.08.2016, at about 05.30 pm., when the petitioner was riding a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-58-P-0880 keeping the left edge of the road, a Milk van bearing Registration No.TN-57-AB-6798 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. The petitioner sustained injuries. He was taken to Dindigul Government Hospital and after getting first aid, he was admitted in Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital and he took treatment as inpatient. The vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the policy was effective. The petitioner was working as a sales agent in S.T.C. Agencies, Oddanchatram and he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The petitioner claim a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. 3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P. No.45 of 2017, is as follows:- The rider of the Motor cycle was responsible for the accident. It was the petitioner, who came along the middle of the road and the petitioner rubbed the two wheeler along the left side body of the vehicle that belonged to the first respondent and he invited the accident. The F.I.R was registered. Only 3 days after the alleged occurrence. The age, income, profession, nature of injuries, disability, medical expenses and period of treatment are all denied. The loss of income and rate of interest are all excessive. The petition to be dismissed. 4. One (1) witness was examined and Five (5) documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,58,500/- and after deducting 10%, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of 2,33,000/- as compensation. 5. 4. One (1) witness was examined and Five (5) documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,58,500/- and after deducting 10%, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of 2,33,000/- as compensation. 5. Against the award, the appellant - claimant has filed this Appeal on the following grounds:- 5.1. The Tribunal ought to have awarded a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as prayed for. The Tribunal failed to consider that the claimant sustained grievous injury in the head and both the hands and the claimant took treatment as inpatient from 03.08.2016 till 01.10.2016. The appellant is permanently disabled. The gravity of the injuries and sufferings of the claimant are to be taken into consideration. The claimant has proved that he spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, but, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.4,500/-, which is very low. The appellant was getting a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, but, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income as Rs.200/- per day and has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income for a period of 5 months. 45% disability is permanent in nature and the Tribunal is wrong in awarding loss of income only for a period of 5 months. 5.2. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,30,000/- for disability, which is very low. The Tribunal ought to have considered that there was 3 grievous injuries. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.20,000/- towards travelling expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards neutrious food, Rs.1,000/- towards attender charges, which are all very low. 6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant was inpatient for a period of 2 months, he has undergone surgery. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.4,500/- towards medical expenses, which is very low. 7. On the side of the second respondent – Insurance Company, it is stated that the appellant was not having valid driving licence and the negligence ought to have been fixed on the claimant. It is further stated that 10% negligence was fixed on the claimant and the same to be increased. The claimant was not having valid driving licence. Rs.3,000/- per percentage was awarded towards 45% of disability, which is sufficient. It is further stated that 10% negligence was fixed on the claimant and the same to be increased. The claimant was not having valid driving licence. Rs.3,000/- per percentage was awarded towards 45% of disability, which is sufficient. The treatment was given only in the Government Hospital and the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is reasonable and there is no necessity to enhance the compensation. 8. On the side of the second respondent – Insurance Company, it is stated that the claimant was not having valid driving licence. It is seen that the claimant has made an endorsement that he was not having valid driving licence. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal fixed 90% negligence on the respondents and 10% negligence on the claimant, which is reasonable. 9. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the claimant sustained injury and the case sheet from Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital was marked as Ex.P2. Medical bills were marked as Ex.P3. Wound certificate was marked as Ex.P5. It is seen that the medical board has examined the claimant and assessed the disability as 45%. Considering the fact that the injury is on the ankle of the right hand, it is decided that the claimant is entitled to claim compensation by adopting multiplier method. 10. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant was getting a salary of Rs.12,000/-. But, no document was filed on the side of the appellant, to prove the income. Considering the date of accident, the monthly income is fixed as Rs.9,000/-. For 45% disability, the claimant is entitled to Rs.4,050/- (Rs.9,000/- X 45/100) per month. The age of the claimant at the time of accident is 40 years. Considering the age of the claimant, multiplier ''15'' is applicable. After applying multiplier, the loss of income is calculated as Rs.7,29,000/- (Rs.4,050/- X 12 X 15). 11. The appellant has taken treatment only in the Government Hospital. No medical bills was marked, except Ex.P3. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,500/- towards medical expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, which are all reasonable. 12. The Appellant filed Ex.P4 to prove the transport expenses. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.28,000/- towards transport expenses, which is excessive. Hence, the transport expenses is reduced to Rs.10,000/- 13. The total compensation is calculated as follows:- loss of income Rs. 7,29,000/- medical expenses Rs. 12. The Appellant filed Ex.P4 to prove the transport expenses. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.28,000/- towards transport expenses, which is excessive. Hence, the transport expenses is reduced to Rs.10,000/- 13. The total compensation is calculated as follows:- loss of income Rs. 7,29,000/- medical expenses Rs. 4,500/- pain and sufferings, Rs. 40,000/- loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- transport expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total compensation Rs. 7,93,500/- 14. This appeal is partly allowed. The compensation is enhanced from 2,33,000/- to Rs.7,93,500/-. (i) The claimant is entitled to Rs.7,93,500/- as compensation. (ii) The second respondent herein - Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.7,93,500/- (less the amount if any already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and with costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) On such deposit being made, the appellant / claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, on filing proper petition before the Tribunal, less any amount, if already withdrawn by them. The Claimant is not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any default. No costs.