(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to enhance the compensation amount made in award dated 03.12.2024 made in MCOP No. 66 of 2024 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Special Subordinate Court No.01, Salem.)
1. Unsuccessful claimant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in award dated 03.12.2024 in MCOP.No.66 of 2024 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court No.1, Salem.
2. According to the claimant / Samuvel, on 16.07.2023 at about 7.20 a.m., when he was riding his motor bike bearing Reg.No.TN 33 V 0175 from Coimbatore to Trichy Main road, proceeding from East to West, at that time, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN 64 Z 6526 which was driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant’s vehicle. Due to the accident, he sustained extradural haemorrhage in left temporoparietal, sudural haemorrhage in left frontotemporal, fracture on left temporal and parietal bones, lacerated injury on left, abrasion on right knee, abrasion on left knee, fracture on left acromian and injuries all over the body. According to him, the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent was the sole reason for the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the claimant. At the time of accident, he was aged about 41 years, was hale and healthy and working as load man in the spinning mill under the employment of M/s.Sree Jagathguru Textile Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Olappalayam and was earning not less than Rs.25,000/- per month. He took treatment as in-patient from 16.07.2023 to 17.07.2023 and then admitted in Sudha Hospital, Erode and Aravind Hospital, Erode for his head injury. During the course of treatment, fractured bones of his head was removed by an operation called Craniotomy and blood clot was removed, burrhole to right fronto parietal region by administering heavy antibiotics, intake of pain killings drugs, physiotherapy exercises etc. The claimant claimed compensation before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-.
3. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company has filed a counter statement denying the averments, wherein it has been stated that the claimant has to prove the manner of accident as stated in the claim petition. In fact the 1st respondent / owner cum rider of the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 64 Z 6526 drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner and at that time, the claimant drove his two wheeler in a rash and zigzag manner without driving licence, helmet, without insurance, infructuous RC and not paid life Tax and has invited the accident out of his own negligence and therefore, the 2nd respondent / insurer is not liable to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and one Dineshbabu was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined and Ex.R1 was marked and Exs.C1 and C2 were marked as Court Exhibits.
5. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that there is negligence on the part of the 1st respondent motorcycle rider, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. However, the Tribunal found that at the time of accident, the 1st respondent rider of the vehicle did not possess valid driving licence and policy was in force with the 2nd respondent Insurance Company and held that 20% contributory negligence was fastened on the claimant, as per the admission made by the claimant. Considering the fact that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 41 years and working as load man in a spinning mill, fixed the Notional Income of the claimant as Rs.12,000/- per month and accordingly calculated at Rs.36,000/- towards Loss of Earnings for 3 months treatment period and on considering Ex.C1- Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, wherein the permanent disability has been assessed as 20% and considering the ratio laid down by this Court in Pradeep v. M.Natarajan and another [CMA.No.1759/2023], fixed Rs.7,000/- for each percentage of disability and calculated Rs.1,40,000/- for 20% permanent disability. The Tribunal has also awarded compensation under various other heads and the same is tabulated hereunder:
| Heads of Compensation | Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) |
| Loss of Pain and Suffering | 50,000 |
| Loss of Earning | 36,000 |
| Medical Expenses Incurred | 4,52,932 |
| Transportation Charges | 30,000 |
| Extra Nourishment | 25,000 |
| Attender Charges | 25,000 |
| Loss of Damages to clothes | 1,000 |
| Loss of Amenities | 30,000 |
| Permanent Disability | 1,40,000 |
| TOTAL | 7,89,932 |
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / claimant would submit that the Tribunal failed to note that the appellant is working as a load man in a spinning mill and earning Rs.25,000/- per month and at the time of accident, the claimant was 41 years and therefore, monthly income ought to have been fixed at Rs.25,000/-. However, the Tribunal has fixed meagre amount of Rs.12,000/- towards monthly income and as per Ex.C1- Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, it has been stated that District Medical Board assessed 20% functional disability as it would affect his continued working and therefore, fixing Rs.7,000/- towards each percentage of disability is very meagre and the same may be enhanced. The learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads also appears to be minimal and therefore, prays for interference.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company would submit that based on the evidence adduced and as per Ex.C1 – Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board which assessed the functional disability at 20%, the Tribunal has rightly fixed Rs.7,000/- for each percentage of disability and considering that the claimant was 41 years at the time of accident, Rs.12,000/- was fixed as notional income of the claimant and awarded Rs.36,000/- towards loss of earnings for 3 months and also rightly arrived compensation under various other heads also, which does not warrants any interference and prays for dismissal of this appeal.
8. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the entire materials available on record.
9. According to the claimant, he was aged about 41 years at the time of accident and he was hale and healthy till the accident and was working as load man in a spinning mill and earning not less than Rs.25,000/- per month. In order to prove his avocation, the claimant has not marked any document. Further, according to the claimant, he was taking treatment as in-patient for a period of 29 days from 16.07.2023 to 17.07.2023.
10. Considering the fact that the accident had happened in the year 2023 and the claimant was aged about 41 years at the time of accident, fixing Rs.12,000/- as notional income of the claimant appears to be meagre and the same has to be enhanced. Accordingly this Court is inclined to enhance the notional income of the claimant from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month. Insofar as awarding compensation towards disability is concerned, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.7,000/- for each percentage of disability, which is not proper taking into consideration of the fact that due to the accident the claimant had sustained fracture on left temporal and parietal bones, fracture on left acromion and injuries all over the body and took treatment for nearly 29 days. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation amount for each percentage of disability from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. According the compensation for disability comes to Rs.2,00,000/- [Rs.10,000 x 20]. As regards pain and suffering, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.75,000/-. The compensation awarded for Extra Nourishment is also enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. So also, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for Attender Charges is enhanced from Rs.25,000/ to Rs.50,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads appears to be just and fair. Thus, the compensation modified by this Court is tabulated hereunder:
| Heads of Compensation | Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) | Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.) |
| Loss of Pain and Suffering | 50,000 | 75,000 |
| Loss of Earning | 36,000 | 54,000 (Rs.18,000 x 3) |
| Medical Expenses Incurred | 4,52,932 | 4,52,932 |
| Transportation Charges | 30,000 | 30,000 |
| Extra Nourishment | 25,000 | 50,000 |
| Attender Charges | 25,000 | 50,000 |
| Loss of Damages to clothes | 1,000 | 1,000 |
| Loss of Amenities | 30,000 | 30,000 |
| Permanent Disability | 1,40,000 | 2,00,000 (Rs.10,000 x 20) |
| TOTAL | 7,89,932 | 9,42,9329,43,000 (Rounded Off.) |
“9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence…
By applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, in the case on hand, merely on the ground that at the time of accident the claimant did not possess valid driving licence, attributing 20% contributory negligence on him is unsustainable in law and the same requires interference.
12. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands partly allowed and the award dated 03.12.2024 made in MCOP.No.66 of 2024 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court No.1, Salem is modified to the effect that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,43,000/- from the 2nd respondent Insurance Company along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent Insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation as awarded by this Court, less amount already deposited if any, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same on filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. The manner and mode of disbursement of compensation shall be per the order of the Tribunal. No costs.