| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 7102
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : C.M.A. (MD). No. 1281 of 2016 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN |
| Parties : B. Ramesh Versus D. Sampath & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: H. Lakshmi Shankar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, S. Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 28-09-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 -
Case Referred:
Rajkumar vs. Ajaykumar - 2011 (1) SCC 343
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, Sections Mentioned:
- Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
2. Catch Words:
- compensation
- permanent disability
- enhancement
- civil miscellaneous appeal
3. Summary:
The claimant, injured in a road accident on 17‑11‑2011, was awarded Rs 1,16,700 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kumbakonam, for various heads including 30% permanent disability. The insurer appealed, contending the award was excessive. The High Court examined the evidence, noting the permanent disability was fixed at 30% and that the Tribunal should have applied Rs 3,000 per percentage point, resulting in Rs 90,000 for disability. Consequently, the Court enhanced the disability component by Rs 30,000, raising the total award to Rs 1,46,700, while confirming the other heads. Interest at 7.5% per annum and costs were directed to be paid by the insurer.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam in M.C.O.P.No.197 of 2012 on 08.10.2013 and enhance the compensation amount of Rs.1,16,700/- and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.)
1. The claimant in M.C.O.P. No.197 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam, has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by order dated 08.10.2013.
2. Fact of the case:
2.1. The case of the claimant is that on 17.11.2011 at about 3.00 p.m., while he was riding his bicycle, the offending vehicle, which was insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company, dashed against him, resulting in injuries. He took treatment and thereafter filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in M.C.O.P. No.197 of 2012. The Insurance Company denied the manner of the accident and disputed the quantum of compensation claimed as excessive.
2.2. The appellant/Insurance Company filed a counter denying the manner of the accident and the negligence attributed to the driver of the insured vehicle. The appellant also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant.
2.3. In order to substantiate his claim, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined the doctor. He also marked Exs.P1 to P18.
3. Finding of the Tribunal:
3.1. The Tribunal, after fixing the negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle, directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,16,700/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on the various heads:
Sl.No
| Heads
| Award in Rs.
| 1
| 30% of Disability
| 60,000/-
| 2
| Pain and sufferings
| 20,000/-
| 3
| Extra nourishment
| 10,000/-
| 4
| Loss of Income
| 7,500/-
| 5
| Medical Bills
| 17,200/-
| 6
| Transportation
| 2,000/-
| Total
| 1,16,700/-
| 3.2. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.
4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant:
4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that the injured claimant was working as a Higher Grade Assistant in the LIC Department. Due to the injuries, namely, fracture of the right petrous temporal bone, injuries to the left temporo-parietal-occipital region and right parietal scalp, and right lambdoid suture diastasis, he suffered pain and inconvenience. Though he continued in service, he was experiencing discomfort due to the injuries. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal had erroneously awarded a lesser amount, particularly when the permanent disability was assessed at 30%, and therefore, sought enhancement of the compensation.
5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/ Insurance company:
5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the fact that the claimant continued in service as a Higher Grade Assistant in the LIC Department without any reduction in his salary, had awarded compensation under the relevant heads after considering the medical bills and other evidence. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, no further enhancement was warranted and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation.
7. The following point arise for consideration of this appeal:
(i)Whether the learned Tribunal Judge is correct in fixing the compensation as awarded?
8. Discussion and findings:
8.1. This Court has carefully considered the evidence of the injured claimant and Exs.P6, P8, P11, P13, P14, P17 and P18. Ex.P17 which clearly shows that the permanent disability was assessed at 30%. The evidence of the claimant also shows that he continued in employment without any reduction in his salary. In view of the settled position of law in the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajaykumar reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 and the facts of the present case, this Court finds no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier method for assessing the compensation towards permanent disability.
8.2. The claimant suffered 30% of the permanent disability and the same has not been disputed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. The accident was happened on 17.11.2011. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. However, the Tribunal had awarded only a sum of Rs.60,000/- under the head of permanent disability instead of awarding Rs.90,000/- (ie., 30 X 3000). Considering the nature of the injuries, the percentage of disability and the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the said amount is inadequate. Hence, the compensation under the head of permanent disability is enhanced from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.90,000/-.
8.3. Insofar as the remaining heads of compensation are concerned, this Court finds that the Tribunal has properly assessed the compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record, and no interference is warranted.
9. Conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is re-determined as follows:-
Sl. No
| Heads
| Award in Rs. Amount awarded by the Tribunal
| Re-quantified amount by this Court
| Status
| 1
| 30% of Disability
| 60,000/-
| 90,000/-
| Enhanced
| 2
| Pain and sufferings
| 20,000/-
| 20,000/-
| Confirmed
| 3
| Extra nourishment
| 10,000/-
| 10,000/-
| Confirmed
| 4
| Loss of Income
| 7,500/-
| 7,500/-
| Confirmed
| 5
| Medical Bills
| 17,200/-
| 17,200/-
| Confirmed
| 6
| Transportation
| 2,000/-
| 2,000/-
| Confirmed
| Total
| 1,16,700/-
| 1,46,700/-
| Enhanced
| 10. Result
10.1. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
10.2. The awarded dated 08.10.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.197 of 2012 by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam is enhanced from Rs.1,16,700/- to Rs.1,46,700/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.30,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit.
10.3. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount, together with accrued interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10.4. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
|
| |