(Prayer: First respondent died. Third respondent is brought on record as legal representative of the deceased first respondent viz., A.Marimuthu vide Court order dated 04.08.2026 made in C.M.P.Nos.28208, 28211 & 28213 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.137 of 2022 by NAVJ.
Sole appellant died. The second appellant is brought on record as legal representative of the deceased sole appellant viz., A.Marimuthu vide Court order dated 12.12.2023 made in C.M.P.Nos.27860 to 27862 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.1020 of 2023 by NSSJ.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 27.04.2021 made in M.C.O.P No.195 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court II, Tiruvallur.)
Common Judgment:
1. These appeals have been filed both by the insurance company as well as the claimant against the award dated 27.04.2021 passed in M.C.O.P No.195 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court II, Tiruvallur.
2. The first appellant in C.M.A.No.1020 of 2023 was the claimant. He died during the pendency of these appeals and hence, his wife has been brought on record. The case of the claimant is that on 24.03.2019, he was walking at Thiruvallur - Kancheepuram road and at about 6.45 p.m., near the railway station, the offending vehicle, a two wheeler, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, as a result of which the claimant sustained both bone fracture in right leg. He underwent treatment as an inpatient for nearly 92 days and one surgery was also performed. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the two wheeler. The Tribunal, having rendered the above finding, proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.4,91,000/- under the following heads:
| Sl. No. | Compensation awarded under the head | Amount (in Rs.) |
| 1. | Loss of income | 1,08,000/- |
| 2. | Physical disability | 3,00,000/- |
| 3. | Medical expenses | 5,000/- |
| 4. | Transport expenses | 2,000/- |
| 5. | Extra nourishment | 10,000/- |
| 6. | Damage to clothing and articles | 1,000/- |
| 7. | Pain and sufferings | 20,000/- |
| 8. | Attender charges | 5,000/- |
| 9. | Loss of happiness and amenities | 40,000/- |
| Total | 4,91,000/- |
4. Heard learned counsel for claimant and learned counsel for insurance company. This Court also considered the materials available on record and carefully went through the award passed by the Tribunal.
5. The main ground urged on the side of the insurance company is that as per the disability assessment certificate [Ex.C1], the Medical Board had opined that the injured suffered 60% temporary disability. In such a scenario, it is contended that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed Rs.5,000/- per percentage like it is done in a case of permanent disability or partial permanent disability. The other ground raised is regarding the compensation fixed under the head ‘loss of happiness and amenities’ to the tune of Rs.40,000/-.
6. Insofar as the claimant is concerned, learned counsel contended that the injured underwent treatment as an inpatient for nearly 92 days and one surgery was also performed and therefore, the compensation fixed under various heads requires enhancement.
7. The fact remains that the injured sustained both bone fracture in right leg. He also underwent surgery. It is true that under Ex.C1, the Medical Board had recorded that the injured suffered 60% temporary disability. In many cases involving both bone fracture, it is seen that the Medical Board record it as partial permanent disability, but, in this case, it has been recorded as temporary disability. That by itself will not disentitle the injured from getting compensation for the percentage of disability assessed by the Medical Board by adopting percentage method. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity in the finding rendered by the Tribunal by adopting percentage method and fixing a sum of Rs.5,000/- per percentage.
8. Insofar as the grievance expressed by the claimant is concerned, learned counsel pointed out to the discharge summary [Ex.P3] and contended that the injured was taking treatment as an inpatient for nearly 92 days and as an outpatient for 11 months. Therefore, according to them, compensation fixed under various heads requires enhancement.
9. It is quite surprising that for an injury of both bone fracture in right leg, the injured had stayed in the Government hospital for nearly 92 days. It is not known as to why the hospital allowed the injured to stay in the hospital for such a long time. Just because the injured had a prolonged stay in the hospital, that by itself cannot be a ground to enhance the compensation under various heads since there is no material to show as to why the injured was retained for such a long time in the hospital.
10. The Tribunal has curiously fixed compensation under the head ‘loss of happiness and amenities’. The same is interfered and compensation of Rs.20,000/- is fixed for loss of amenities. The compensation fixed under the other heads are just and reasonable and do not require the interference of this Court.
11. In the light of the above discussion, this Court modifies the compensation in the following manner:
| Sl.No. | Compensation awarded under the head | Amount by the Tribunal (in Rs.) | Amount awarded by this Court (in Rs.) |
| 1. | Loss of income | 1,08,000/- | 1,08,000/- |
| 2. | Physical disability | 3,00,000/- | 3,00,000/- |
| 3. | Medical expenses | 5,000/- | 5,000/- |
| 4. | Transport expenses | 2,000/- | 2,000/- |
| 5. | Extra nourishment | 10,000/- | 10,000/- |
| 6. | Damage to clothing and articles | 1,000/- | 1,000/- |
| 7. | Pain and sufferings | 20,000/- | 20,000/- |
| 8. | Attender charges | 5,000/- | 5,000/- |
| 9. | Loss of happiness and amenities | 40,000/- | - |
| 10. | Loss of amenities | - | 20,000/- |
| Total | 4,91,000/- | 4,71,000/- |
In the result,
(a) C.M.A.No.137 of 2022 is partly allowed.
(b)C.M.A.No.1020 of 2023 is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.