Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
M. Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
B. Padmanaban and Another – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 2521 of 2019
Decided On : 04-01-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Enhancement - Section 173 - M.C.O.P. No. 4424 of 2012 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - The court discussed the compensation enhancement sought by the appellant and the factors considered in determining the revised compensation. The court analyzed the evidence related to disability, loss of income, medical expenses, and other damages, and made adjustments to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the appellant's claims and supporting evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed for enhancement of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal due to injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. The appellant claimed that the initial compensation was inadequate and sought higher amounts for disability, loss of income, medical expenses, and other damages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation for disability, loss of income, medical expenses, and other damages based on the evidence presented and the nature of the injuries sustained. The court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to reflect the appellant's claims and the court's assessment of the appropriate amounts.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of the initial compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the extent of the appellant's injuries and disabilities, the impact on the appellant's income, and the justification for seeking enhancement of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the assessment of the evidence presented, including medical records, testimony, and the nature of the injuries. The court considered the appellant's claims and made adjustments to the compensation to reflect the actual impact of the accident on the appellant's physical and financial well-being.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was partly allowed, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs. 2,35,807/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent was directed to deposit the revised award amount within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.03.2017 made in M.C.O.P. No. 4424 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
1. The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing.”
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation granted by the award dated 15.03.2017 made in M.C.O.P. No. 4424 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
3. The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 4424 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. He filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 12.08.2012.
4. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,55,307/- as compensation to the appellant at the first instance and recover the same from the 1st respondent.
5. Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the accident the appellant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. PW-2/Doctor examined the appellant and certified that appellant suffered 45% disability and issued Ex.P6/disability certificate to that effect. The Tribunal without giving any valid reason, reduced the percentage of disability to 30% and awarded compensation only for 30% disability. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for 45% disability. The appellant was working as Two Wheeler Mechanic and was earning a sum of Rs. 500/- per day and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is meagre. The appellant has taken treatment in the Government General Hospital, Chennai as inpatient from 13.08.2012 to 25.08.2012 and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges are meagre. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities and future medical expenses and prayed for enhancement of compensation.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that PW-2/Doctor is not the doctor who treated the appellant and deposed that percentage of disability may vary from Doctor to Doctor upto 5%. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-2/Doctor and reduced the percentage of disability from 45% to 30%. The appellant has not produced any material evidence to prove his avocation and income. In the absence of any material evidence with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 7,500/- per month as notional income of the appellant and awarded compensation towards loss of income for 73 days, which is excessive. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are not meagre. The appellant has not made out any case for enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him either in person or through counsel.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the entire materials on record.
10. From the materials available on record, it is seen that it is the contention of the appellant that in the accident he sustained grievous injuries all over the body. To prove the same, the appellant exami
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
