Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2215 (MAD)

Pappa v. Tamilarasu

2023-07-03

SUNDER MOHAN

body2023
JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree in MCOP No.928 of 2017, dated 26.07.2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Namakkal.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 26.07.2019 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.928 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Namakkal. 2. The appellant filed M.A.C.T.O.P.No.928 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Namakkal, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 06.06.2017. 3. It is the case of the appellant that on 06.06.2017 at about 3:00 PM while she was walking on the Vaiyappamalai to Mallasamudram Main road, Trichengode near Kotapalayam Petrol Bunk, the first respondent who was riding a moped bearing reg.no.TN 34 V – 7656 (TVS XL Super Heavy Duty) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant; that the appellant sustained multiple injuries on account of the said accident and filed a petition claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The first respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The second respondent filed counter statement denying the averments made in the petition and also submitted that the accident did not take place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The second respondent further submitted that since the first respondent did not have a valid driving license, the second respondent was not liable to pay compensation. In any event, the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked eleven documents as Exs.P1 to Exs.P11. The second respondent marked four documents as Exs.P.1 to Exs.P.4. However, no witness was examined on the side of the second respondent. 7. In any event, the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked eleven documents as Exs.P1 to Exs.P11. The second respondent marked four documents as Exs.P.1 to Exs.P.4. However, no witness was examined on the side of the second respondent. 7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and documents filed on the side of the appellant as well as the second respondent held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent act of the first respondent and also found that the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- and directed the second respondent to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the first respondent, since the rider of the motorcycle did not possess driving license at the time of accident. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the Tribunal had rightly fixed the disability of the appellant as 15%, had awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- for a percentage of disability. The learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of this Court in M.Chinnathambi Vs. S.Deepa and another reported in CDJ 2020 MHC 1013 in support of his submission and submitted that since the accident took place in the year 2017, a sum of Rs.5000/- has to be fixed per percentage of disability. The learned counsel further submitted that since a plate was fixed on the left ankle of the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under future medical expenses. The compensation awarded under the heads Transport Expenses, Extra Nourishment, Loss of Income, Pain and Sufferings also needs not to be enhanced and prayed for allowing the appeal. 10. Per Contra, Mr.N.Anbumurugan, the learned counsel for the second respondent, submitted that the Tribunal had taken into consideration all the factors and had awarded the just compensation and there is no reason to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is reasonable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company and perused the entire materials on record. 12. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is reasonable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company and perused the entire materials on record. 12. This Court finds that there is force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the accident took place in the year 2017, a sum of Rs.5000/- has to be awarded for a percentage of disability. This Court in M.Chinnathambi Vs. S.Deepa and another (cited supra) had held as follows: “8. ...This Court by the judgment reported in 2013(2) TNMAC 583 in the matter of “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. G.Ramesh“, granted Rs.3,000/- per percentage for accident occurred in the year 2009, enhancing from Rs 2,000/- per percentage taking into account the cost of living at that time. Due to passage of time, a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability awarded in the year 2013 for the accident of the year 2009 is to be enhanced. Taking into consideration the raise in cost of living, it will be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.4,000/- per percentage for the accident of the year 2014 and 2015 and Rs.5,000/- per percentage for the accident from the year 2016 onwards towards disability certified by the qualified Doctor or Medical Board. In The present case, the accident has occurred on 01.07.2016”. Therefore, this Court is of the view that compensation awarded under the head Disability has to be enhanced from Rs.45000/- (15 X 3000) to Rs.75000/- (15 X 5000). This Court also finds that the amount of Rs.5000/- awarded for Transportation Expenses is meagre and hence, enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Similarly, the amount awarded under the head Pain and Sufferings is also meagre and hence enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. The award granted by the Tribunal under the head Extra Nourishment is also meagre and same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The appellant has not produced any acceptable evidence to prove that he is likely to incur expenses for medical treatment in future. Hence, he is not entitled to compensation under the head Future Medical Expenses. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are confirmed. The appellant has not produced any acceptable evidence to prove that he is likely to incur expenses for medical treatment in future. Hence, he is not entitled to compensation under the head Future Medical Expenses. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,46,000/- to Rs.1,96,000/-, break-up as follows - Sl. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. 15 % Disability 45000/- (15 X 3000) 75,000/- (15 X 5000) Enhanced 2. Medical Bills 66,453/- 66,453/- Confirmed 3. Transportation Charges 5,000/- 10,000/- Enhanced 4. Pain and sufferings 5,000/- 15,000/- Enhanced 5. Loss of income 19,500/- 19,500/- Confirmed 6. Extra Nourishment 5,000/- 10,000/- Enhanced Total 1,45,953/- Rounded of to Rs.1,46,000//- 1,95,953/- Rounded of to Rs.1,96,000/- Enhanced By Rs.50,000/- 13. With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,46,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.1,96,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant is directed to pay the necessary court fee, if any on the enhanced compensation. The second respondent is directed to deposit the award amount, now determined by this Court, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of this Judgment, at the first instance and recover the same from the first respondent, the owner of the vehicle. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount along with interest and cost, after deducting the amount already withdrawn if any. No costs.