IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Selvaraj - Appellant
Versus
K. Palaniammal & Others – Respondent
C.M.A. No. 175 of 2017
Decided On : 12-02-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Enhancement - Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - [MOTOR VEHICLES] - [Section 173] - [Summary of Acts and Sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the negligence of the car driver and the liability of the Transport Corporation. It referred to the medical records and evidence of the doctor to assess the disability and awarded compensation under various heads. The court modified the award of the Tribunal and enhanced the compensation amount.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation after being injured in a car accident. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- as compensation, which the petitioner claimed to be insufficient.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was insufficient and modified the award to Rs.1,39,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Issues: The main issue was the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the car accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to enhance the compensation amount after considering the evidence and plea of the appellant, and modified the award to Rs.1,39,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was partly allowed, and the award of the Tribunal was enhanced from Rs.1,24,000/- to Rs.1,39,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization. The 2nd respondent/Transport Corporation was directed to deposit the enhanced award amount with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2004, dated 31.07.2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, for enhancement of compensation.)
1. The Appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.
2. The short facts of the case is that, on 10.08.2003 the petitioner along with his wife Rajalakshmi, Thirugnanasambandam and Thaiyal Nayaki was travelling in Ambassador car bearing registration No.TN-49-X-1071 and proceedings towards Kadambur. Near Pethanayakkankuppam, at about 6.30 a.m. the driver of the Ambassador car rash and negligently dashed against the Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-32-N-1161. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the car driver as well as the Transport bus driver. In the said accident, the petitioner sustained injury, one the occupant Thirugnanasambandam died. The petitioner herein was admitted in the hospital for treatment. For one month, he was under treatment as inpatient and thereafter, continue to take treatment as out-patient for his communited fracture of right Pelvis, hip and fracture of left clavicle bone. Due to the said injury, the claimant was not able to walk, stand and board bus. His normal life is affected in spite of best treatment. As a secondary grade teacher, is not able to discharge his job and therefore, there is loss of income. Claiming Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. Petition was filed against the owner of the car, its insurer and the Managing Director of the Transport Corporation.
3. The Transport Corporation filed counter stating that the driver of the Transport bus diligently driving his bus and it was the negligence of the car driver, who came in the opposite direction in a zigzag manner and dashed against the bus. F.I.R was registered against the car driver since the Transport bus driver is no way responsible for the accident.
4. The 2nd respondent, in his counter, denied the averments made in the petition and liability to compensate the claimant. According to the 2nd respondent, who is the insurer of the Ambassador car, the car driver had no valid driving license and the car had no valid permit. The income, age and occupation of the petitioner were denied.
5. The Tribunal, after going through the evidence and pleadings held the accident occurred due to rash and negligently driving of the car driver. On considering the medical records and the evidence of P.W.7 Dr.Nandakumar, disability certificate Ex.P.50 awarded a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- as compensation.
6. In the appeal, the claimant had stated that the said award is very less for the injury sustained. The Doctor has assessed 60% disability. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.60,000/- for the permanent disability, it ought to have applied multiplier method and awarded compensation since the injury sustained by the claimant has caused functional disability. The medical records pertaining to this claimant are Ex.P.21 the O.P.Chit issued by the Government Hospital, Cuddalore and the Accident Register report marked as Ex.P.22 indicate the claimant has sustained following injuries.
(ii). Two abrasions right fore arm 2cm x 1 cm.
(iii). Contusion right hand 4cm x 4 cm.
(iv). Lacerated injury (not clear) 2cm x 1cm x 1 cm.
7. The discharge summary (Ex.P.23) of the claimant issued by Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore, reveals that, he was admitted in the hospital on 10.08.2003 and got discharged on 10.09.2003. The course of treatment given to him is stated as:- “For Central Fracture dislocation (R) Hip with displacement of Acetabulam Fragments. Initially he was given Upper Tibial Pin Traction and then Fracture dislocation reduction done with Acetabulam Fixed on 21.08.2003. Under Spinal Anaesthesia Fixation stable. Traction continu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.