Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2062
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
C. Senthil Nathan - Appellant
Vs.
R. Saravanan and Ors. - Respondents
C.M.A. NO. 2897 of 2010
Decided On : 06-09-2018
For the Appellant : Mrs. P.T. Salim Fathima
For the Respondent: Mr. J. Chandran
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of just compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident, considering the nature of injuries, loss of earnings, disability percentage, and other relevant factors.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation Enhancement - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166] - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the percentage of disability, loss of earnings, transportation costs, extra nourishment charges, permanent disability, attender charges, and loss of amenities. The court referred to the settled principles of law as laid down by previous court decisions and the Hon'ble Supreme Court to assess the just compensation for the claimant.]
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded a lower compensation amount, which the claimant found unjust.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was low and not in accordance with the settled principles of law. It observed that the nature of injuries and the claimant's occupation warranted a higher compensation.
Issues: The main issue was the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in relation to the claimant's injuries and occupation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to enhance the compensation based on the nature of injuries, loss of earnings, disability percentage, and other relevant factors, in line with settled legal principles.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,91,200/- to Rs.2,66,200/- and directed the second respondent to deposit the modified amount with interest to the credit of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The instant appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation in the Award dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (IVth Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in MCOP. No. 2891 of 2006
The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows :
2. The Appellant sustained injuries as a result of an accident that took place on 14.04.2006 caused by a tempo traveler van bearing registration No. TN20-AA-5821 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The Appellant preferred a compensation claim before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal in MCOP. No. 2891 of 2006 seeking a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him as a result of the above said accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by its Award dated 23.07.2010 directed the second respondent to pay the Appellant/claimant a sum of Rs.1,91,200/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation.
3. Aggrieved by the Award dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP. No. 2891 of 2006, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. Heard Mrs. P.T. Salim Fathima, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel for the second respondent.
5. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, the quantum of compensation awarded to the Appellant is very low and not in accordance with the settled principles of law. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, at the time of the accident, she was aged 25 years and was a Design engineer earning a monthly salary of Rs.17,000/-. As a result of the accident, the Appellant sustained dislocation of PIP joint right 4th toe, fracture of proximal phalanx of right 5th toe and fracture base of 2nd metatarsal right foot. Wound debridment closed reduction of PIP joint right 4th and 5th toe, k-wire stablisation of PIP Joint right 5th toe and primary repair of flexation at right 5th toe. Skin grafting was also done at right foot. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, the disability certificate was also produced by the Appellant before the Tribunal which was marked as Ex.P10.
6. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant and his avocation, at the time of the accident, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal towards loss of earning during the treatment period, transportation cost, entra nourishment charges and permanent disability is low and not a just compensation. Further the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards attender charges and loss of amenities which were not awarded under the impugned Award.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has awarded a just compensation to the Appellant. According to the Learned counsel for the second respondent, the Appellant sustained only simple injuries and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just compensation.
8. This Court after having considered the materials available on record and after examining the impugned Award and after hearing the submissions of the respective counsels, observes the following :
(a) The occupation of the Appellant has not been disputed by the second respondent before the Tribunal.
(b) The nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant has also not been disputed by the second respondent before the Tribunal.
(c) The Appellant has filed his salary certificate before the Tribunal which was marked as Ex.P7 which discloses that the Appellant was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 17,000/- at the time of the accident. No contra evidence
