Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1901
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
V. Krishnaveni – Appellant
Versus
S. Clement David & Another – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 3399 of 2019
Decided On : 18-09-2020
For the Appellant :K. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate
For the Respondents:R2, R. Sreevidhya, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, when the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is found to be inadequate.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Enhancement - Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - 4000 x 20, Pain and Sufferings, Extra Nourishment, Transport to hospital, Damages to clothes, Attender charges, Medical expenses, Future Medical expenses, Loss of Income(9000 x 6), Loss of Amenities - The court discussed the compensation enhancement sought by the claimant and the objections raised by the Insurance Company. The court found that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and enhanced the total compensation to Rs.2,64,483/- with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the entire award amount within 12 weeks for the claimant to withdraw.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-claimant sought enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, due to injuries sustained in a road accident. The Tribunal had awarded a lower compensation amount, which the claimant found inadequate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and enhanced the total compensation to Rs.2,64,483/- with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the entire award amount within 12 weeks for the claimant to withdraw.
Issues: Inadequate compensation, enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of injuries, disability assessment, loss of income, and other relevant factors in determining the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court concluded that the compensation should be enhanced to adequately compensate the claimant for the injuries sustained.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in part, modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal and enhancing the total compensation to Rs.2,64,483/- with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the entire award amount within 12 weeks for the claimant to withdraw.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2019 passed in M.C.O.P. No.1530 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Judge, Small Causes Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.)
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2019 passed in M.C.O.P. No.1530 of 2015 by the learned III Judge, Small Causes Court -cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
2. The claimant, who is the appellant herein, filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-claimant mainly contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, not in commensurate with the gravity of the injuries sustained as well as the agony underwent by the Appellant-claimant due to the accident. The disability which was fixed as 20% by the Doctor in a reasonable manner has not been properly compensated. A sum of Rs.3000/- for one percentage is granted and the accident occurred during the year 2015. Thus, enhancement is to be made for disability as well as the loss of income and other heads also.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent/Insurance company raised objection stating that the Tribunal has granted reasonable compensation. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant and in view of the fact that the Doctor assessed the disability as 20%, the Tribunal has granted the compensation based on the disability assessed by the Doctor. Therefore, there is no perversity or error in the award passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. The accident occurred on 05.02.2015 at about 18.30 hours at Ambattur Estate road, near the junction of 100 Feet Jawaharlal Road opposite to E.B. Office. Tirumangalam Traffic Investigation, Villivakkam Police station registered a case in Crime No.53/TM 3/ 2015.
6. The appellant-claimant was a pedestrian while crossing the Ambattur Estate road, opposite to E.B. office, the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-02-AY-6664 hit the appellant-claimant and due to that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries.
7. The claim petition was filed by the appellant-claimant and the second respondent/Insurance Company defended the claim petition.
8. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents as well as the evidences produced.
9. As far as the negligence aspect is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.P1 as well as the evidence of P.W.1. Accordingly, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider/first respondent of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-02-AY-6664 which belongs to the first respondent. Thus, the negligence was fixed on the first respondent and consequently, the Tribunal directed the second respondent-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the appellant-claimant.
10. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the disability certificate. On perusal of the nature of injuries, the Tribunal also arrived a conclusion that the disability of 20% would be reasonable. Thus, accepted the disability certificate as it is and granted compensation. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- for one percentage and such compensation is on the lower side. In fact, accident occurred during the year 2015 and taking note of the cost index of the year, the Tribunal ought to have granted atleast a sum of Rs.4000/- for one percentage. Accordingly, disability compensation is to be enhanced.
11. As far as the loss of income is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the salary certificate and fixed the salary of
