Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 113 (MAD)

G. Sakthivel v. N. Murugavel

2024-01-08

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

body2024
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgement dated 23.09.2021 made in MCOP.No.2069 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai. ppearance.) Common Judgment 1. Both the claimant and the insurance company had challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide these appeals. 2. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that on 04.11.2014, while the claimant, who is a paani-poori seller, was riding a two-wheeler, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-B-8845 had come in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to the said accident, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries and his one leg was amputated. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that after examining the injured, the medical board had determined the disability of the injured as 85%. However, the Tribunal had taken the functional disability as 90% for awarding compensation, which is on higher side. Hence, he requests this Court to re-consider the said aspect. 4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that since the injured, whose one leg was amputated, is a paani-poori seller, he cannot stand and carry on his business and that is the reason why the Tribunal has rightly taken 90% as functional disability of the injured. Hence, he prays this Court to confirm the same. Further, he request this Court to enhance the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the materials available on record. 6. In the present case, it appears that due to the accident, the injured had sustained amputation of one leg and hence, the medical board has fixed the disability as 85% and the Tribunal has taken 90% as functional disability while awarding the compensation. 7. This Court is of the considered view that as a paani-poori seller, he has to stand and carry on his business. However, now it is not possible for him to stand for a long time. In such view of the matter, this Court feels that the Tribunal had rightly took 90% as functional disability, which is just and reasonable. Further, there is no need for any interference with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under any of the headings. However, now it is not possible for him to stand for a long time. In such view of the matter, this Court feels that the Tribunal had rightly took 90% as functional disability, which is just and reasonable. Further, there is no need for any interference with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under any of the headings. Accordingly, the compensation awarded vide decree and judgement dated 23.09.2021 stands confirmed. 8. In the result, these civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 9. Further, the insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of MCOP.No.2069 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai. Thereafter, the Tribunal is directed to immediately transfer the entire amount to the bank account of the injured by way of RTGS, within a period of 3 weeks from the deposit and from the date of receipt of the Bank details obtained for the claimant or application for withdrawal from the claimant, whichever is earlier. No costs.