Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 4129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. SUDHAKAR, S. VAIDYANATHAN, JJ.
M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
S. Murugesh - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 36 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 16-02-2016
For the Appellant :Ms. T. Ravichandran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Kalyanasundaram, SC, for Mr. R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims - Partial permanent disability - Awarded compensation - Challenged - First respondent/claimant, along with one, was riding his two wheeler bearing Regn. No. Main Road, near Bottle Shop, Swaraj Tractor driven by second respondent herein, bearing Regn. No. driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed two wheeler driven by claimant due to which the claimant and fell down and suffered grievous injuries - Claimant, on date of accident, was working as driver in State Express Transport Corporation and earning a monthly salary - Claimant therefore filed a claim petition claiming a sum as compensation with interest at 12% p.a - Tribunal based on oral evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 and also taking note of corroborating evidence in form of evidence of P.W.3, doctor, with regard to disability of claimant and further there being no evidence adduced on behalf of respondents to refute testimony as to rash and negligent driving of tractor came to conclusion that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by driver of tractor and therefore liability was fixed on driver of tractor, viz., second respondent herein and appellant herein, viz., insurer of vehicle was directed to compensate claimant – Held, first respondent/claimant is totally incapacitated and will be idle for rest of his life and thereby his income is affected completely - Further, it is an admitted fact that first respondent/claimant has been provided with alternate employment by his employer - In such view of matter, Tribunal ought not have applied multiplier method and instead should have given a particular amount for each percentage of disability suffered by claimant - In above circumstances, this Court is of considered view that amount awarded by Tribunal under head of compensation for partial permanent disability cannot be sustained - It is seen that amounts awarded by Tribunal under other heads are very meagre - Considering cost of living index in the present day scenario amounts awarded by Tribunal for extra nourishment, pain and suffering and transportation requires enhancement - Further, it is admitted that claimant was hospitalised, but no amount has been awarded towards attender charges - In above circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that amount awarded by Tribunal under various other heads requires modification - Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
R. SUDHAKAR, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondents/claimants.
2. The appellant/insurer of the vehicle has filed the appeal challenging the award dated 29.04.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Spl. Sub Court), Coimbatore, made in MCOP No.1197 of 2012.
3. The case of the first respondent/claimant could be briefly stated as under :-
On 20.11.2010 at about 07.15 p.m., when the first respondent/claimant Murugesh, along with one Palanichamy, was riding his two wheeler bearing Regn. No.TN-38-AH-3469 on the Thudiyalur-Pannimadai Main Road, near Rithis Bottle Shop, the Swaraj Tractor driven by the second respondent herein, bearing Regn. No.TN-37-AM-1036, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the two wheeler driven by the claimant due to which the claimant and Palanichamy fell down and suffered grievous injuries.
4. The claimant, on the date of accident, was working as driver in the State Express Transport Corporation and earning a monthly salary of Rs. 15,732/-. The claimant, therefore filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% p.a.
5. In support of the claim, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1. besides one Thamburaj as P.W.2 and Dr. Madhu Periyasamy as P.W.3 and Exs.P-1 to P-28 were marked, the details of which are as follows :-
| Ex.P-1 | Certified xerox copy of FIR |
| Ex.P-2 | Xerox copy of Discharge Summary 1 |
| Ex.P-3 | Xerox copy of Discharge Summary 2 |
| Ex.P-4 | X-ray |
| Ex.P-5 | Xerox copy of Medical Certificate issued by Ganga Hospital |
| Ex.P-6 | Xerox copy of MRI Cervical Spine Scan Report |
| Ex.P-7 | Xerox Copy of CT Right Wrist Scan Report |
| Ex.P-8 | Xerox copy of CT Brain with Facial cuts scan report |
| Ex.P-9 | Xerox copy of CT - Cervical Spine Scan Report |
| Ex.P-10 | Xerox copy of Ration Card |
| Ex.P-11 | Xerox copy of Election Card |
| Ex.P-12 | Xerox Copy of PAN Card of petitioner |
| Ex.P-13 | Xerox copy of driving licence of the petitioner |
| Ex.P-14 | Xerox copy of identity card of the petitioner |
| Ex.P-15 | Xerox copy of letter of enhancement of authorisation amount |
| Ex.P-16 | Xerox copy of pay slip of the petitioner for the month of December, 2007. |
| Ex.P-17 | Xerox copy of notice issued by the petitioner & one another by Corporation Bank, Coimbatore. |
| Ex.P-18 | Xerox copy of identity card of M. Vinitha issued by Presentation Convent Girls Higher Sec. School |
| Ex.P-19 | Xerox copy of identity card of K. Jenitha |
| Ex.P-20 | Receipt issued in favour of Jenitha by KG College of Arts & Science |
| Ex.P-21 | Medical Bills |
| Ex.P-22 | Authorisation letter given by the State Express Transport Corporation, Tamil Nadu, Ltd. |
| Ex.P-23 | Xerox copy of M.M. Thamburaj identity card |
| Ex.P-24 | Salary Certificate of the petitioner |
| Ex.P-25 | Loss of income to the petitioner |
| Ex.P-26 | Disability certificate to the petitioner |
| Ex.P-27 | Discharge Summary 3 |
| Ex.P-28 | Future Medical Expense to the petitioner |
6. On the side of the respondents, neither any witness was examined, nor any document was marked.
7. The Tribunal based on the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 and also taking note of the corroborating evidence in the form of the evidence of P.W.3, the doctor, with regard to the disability of the claimant, and further there being no evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents to refute the testimony as to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor, came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor and, therefore, the l
