Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 847 (MAD)

B. Poongodi v. S. Ranganathan

2025-02-06

S.SOUNTHAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Dharmapuri, injured/claimant has come before this Court. 2. It is not in dispute that injured/claimant met with a road accident on 08.06.2014, while travelling in a car owned by 1 st respondent insured with 2 nd respondent. Both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as 2 nd respondent have not advanced any arguments on the question of negligence and liability aspects. Therefore, necessary facts for considering those questions are not discussed in this judgment. The appeal is confined only to the question of quantum of compensation. 3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant was examined as PW.1 and no one was examined on the side of the respondents. 4. Based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,60,500/- in favour of the claimant. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come by way of this appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant vehemently contended that due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the claimant's left hand fingers got affected and the Medical Board opined that she suffered 38% disability due to the restriction in the finger movements. It is submitted that claimant is a General Surgeon and her disability in fingers would interfere with her profession as a Surgeon and therefore, the Tribunal committed a serious error in adopting percentage method. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent/Insurance Company submitted that as per Ex.X1-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, the claimant suffered Locomotor Disability of 38% in the fingers. The disability suffered in the fingers shall be converted for whole body and therefore, the disability assessed by Medical Board shall be proportionately reduced. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant/claimant is a qualified Surgeon. Ex.P10 is the Master of Surgery Degree Certificate obtained by the claimant. PW.1 in her evidence clearly deposed that she is a Surgeon running a hospital along with her husband. Ex.X1 is the Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board. A perusal of the same would suggest that the claimants suffered following injuries:- (i) Right temporal sylvian fissure left zygoma fracture. (ii) Fracture Left Proximal humerus. (iii) Fracture II Metacarpal Neck. (iv) Right distal radius fracture. (v) Right V Metacarpal Fracture. 8. Ex.X1 is the Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board. A perusal of the same would suggest that the claimants suffered following injuries:- (i) Right temporal sylvian fissure left zygoma fracture. (ii) Fracture Left Proximal humerus. (iii) Fracture II Metacarpal Neck. (iv) Right distal radius fracture. (v) Right V Metacarpal Fracture. 8. The Medical Board opined that claimant suffered following disabilities:- (i) Ophthalmology - 40% Temporary Disability (ii) Dental - 10% disability (iii) Locomotor disability (physiatrist opinion) - 38% disability Total Disabilities 64%. 9. A close perusal of Ex.X1-Disability Certificate would indicate that Ophthalmology Disability of 40% is mentioned as Temporary Disability. Therefore, it need not be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing compensation under the head of disability. The disability of 10%, Dental Disability will not interfere with the activity of the claimant as a Surgeon. Therefore, the same can be ignored. The Locomotor Disability of 38% concerning the fingers of the claimant will certainly interfere with her activities as a General Surgeon. The Medical Board further observed that there is a complaint of pain in the left shoulder region and claimant is not able to use the left index finger normally since there is functional limitation. The Orthopaedic Surgeon observed in the disability certificate that the disability in the left index finger has affected the surgical skills of the claimant. 10. Though the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent/Insurance Company submitted that 38% Locomotor Disability assessed in respect of the hand of the claimant shall be converted into whole body and hence, shall be proportionately reduced, this Court is not inclined to accept the said argument. The Locomotor Disability suffered in the hand of the claimant will directly interfere with the avocation of the claimant as a Surgeon. The Orthopaedic Surgeon, who examined the claimant for the purpose of giving Disability Certificate by the Medical Board clearly noted that the claimant has been suffering from pain in the left shoulder and she is not able to use left index finger and there is functional limitation. He also opined that the functional limitation in the fingers will affect her surgical skills. Therefore, this Court feels that the 38% disability assessed by the Medical Board in respect of hand of the claimant need not be reduced since the same will have direct impact on her profession as a Surgeon. He also opined that the functional limitation in the fingers will affect her surgical skills. Therefore, this Court feels that the 38% disability assessed by the Medical Board in respect of hand of the claimant need not be reduced since the same will have direct impact on her profession as a Surgeon. Therefore, this Court proceeds to fix disability suffered by the claimant as 38%. 11. Coming to the question of income earned by the claimant at the time of accident, Ex.P13, P14 and P15 are the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. The accident had taken place on 08.06.2014. The Ex.P15-Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was filed for the financial year 2012-13 ending with 31.03.2013. Therefore, Exs.P13 to P15 are Income Tax Returns for three financial years immediately preceding the year of accident and hence, the same can be taken into consideration. 12. A perusal of the Exs.P13 to P15 would indicate that the net income of the claimant after deduction for these three years were shown as Rs.12,51,251/-, Rs.7,03,758/-, Rs.13,50,035/-. The net income mentioned in the Income Tax Returns of the claimant has to be read along with her evidence. In the evidence, she clearly admitted that she is running a hospital along with her husband. Therefore, the income mentioned in the Income Tax Returns would consist of her personal income as a Surgeon and also her income from hospital. Therefore, this Court feels it would be appropriate to take 1/3 rd of the income mentioned in the Income Tax Returns as income from her profession as a Surgeon. This Court constrained to take only 1/3 rd of income due to the reason, dehors her injury in fingers and functional disability she can continue the administrative work in managing Hospital. Her surgical skill alone is affected. The average net income for the above mentioned three years is Rs.11,01,681/-. The claimant is entitled to the addition of 10% towards future prospects as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . If 10% future prospects is added to the average net income, the same will be Rs.12,11,849/-. The 1/3 rd of the said amount would be Rs.4,03,950/-. If 10% future prospects is added to the average net income, the same will be Rs.12,11,849/-. The 1/3 rd of the said amount would be Rs.4,03,950/-. If multiplier applicable to her age namely 11 is applied, the total amount payable to the claimant under the head of permanent disability will be Rs.16,88,511/- (Rs.4,03,950 x 11x 38/100 = Rs.16,88,511/-). 13. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities since this Court adopted multiplier method and fixed the amount towards permanent disability, the said amount under the head of loss of amenities is set aside. Likewise, the award of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of mental agony which is synonymous with pain and suffering is also set aside since the Tribunal also awarded under the head of pain and suffering. All other amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads are reasonable and the same are confirmed. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl. No. Description Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Compensation for physical disability Rs.1,52,000/- Rs.16,88,511/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 3. Extra nourishment expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 4. Attender charges Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 5. Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000/- - 6. Medical expenses Rs.98,500/- Rs.98,500/- 7. Transport expenses Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- 8. Mental agony Rs.1,00,000/- - Total Rs.6,60,500/- Rs.18,97,011/- 14. In view of the discussion made earlier, the award of compensation at Rs.6,60,500/- granted by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.18,97,011/-. The 2 nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount of Rs.18,97,011/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition to the date of realisation, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Dharmapuri, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the award amount now enhanced by this Court by making formal application. 15. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.