IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Krishnan Ramasamy, J.
P. Vasudevan - Appellant
Vs.
A. Bhuvaneshwari & Others - Respondent
CMA. No. 2405 of 2022
Decided On : 05-03-2024
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Sections 173, MCOP 8/2019 - The court discussed the application of the multiplier method for determining compensation for disability, pain and suffering, future medical expenses, transport charges, and extra nourishment. The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the gravity of the appellant's injuries and the inadequacy of the initial awards.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for injuries sustained in an accident. The Tribunal had awarded a lower sum of compensation for disability, pain and suffering, future medical expenses, transport charges, and extra nourishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate considering the gravity of the appellant's injuries. The court enhanced the compensation for disability, pain and suffering, future medical expenses, transport charges, and extra nourishment, while confirming the awards for loss of amenities, attender charges, and medical expenses.
Issues: The main issue was the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the appellant's injuries and related expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the multiplier method to determine compensation for disability and enhanced the awards for pain and suffering, future medical expenses, transport charges, and extra nourishment based on the gravity of the injuries sustained by the appellant.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was partly allowed, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs. 5,89,576/- 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/insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced award amount within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decretal award passed by the learned Principle Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) dated 30.8.2022 in MCOP 8/2019.)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation granted by the award dated 30.08.2022 made in MCOP.No.8 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam.
2. The appellant is the claimant in MCOP.No.8 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam. He filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place on 08.12.2016.
3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent, insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.4,60,076/- as compensation to the appellant.
4. Not being satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident occurred on 08.12.2016 and that due to the accident, the appellant suffered severe injuries and was admitted as inpatient in the hospital for 150 days. He suffered fractures at four places and steel plates too have been fixed. The Medical Board assessed the disability of the appellant at 42%. The Tribunal applied the percentage method and awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for every percentage of disability and accordingly, awarded Rs.2,10,000/- under the head of 'disability', which is on the lower side. In a case of this nature, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier method or awarded higher sum of compensation for every percentage of disability. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards future medical expenses, Transport charges and extra nourishment are too low. Hence, he requested to redetermine the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the second respondent insurance company fairly submitted that as far as the fixation of negligence and fastening the liability is concerned, there is no dispute. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair and that the same be confirmed.
7. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents 2 and 4.
8. There is no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred or as regards fixation of negligence and fastening the liability. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Due to the accident which occurred on 08.12.2016, the appellant sustained right united femur fracture, left both bone forearm united fracture and left femur shift fracture woth hypertrophic nonunion. The Medical Board determined the disability of the appellant at 42%. In the present case, the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier method or awarded higher amount for every percentage of disability.
9. Considering the gravity of injury sustained by the appellant, this Court now awards a sum of Rs.6,000 for every percentage of disability. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'disability' is redetermined at Rs.2,52,000/-. Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.75,000, which appears to be very low. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards future medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- which is on the lower side. Therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses. Further the compensation awarded towards transport
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method for determining compensation for disability and the court's authority to enhance compensation based on the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation based on the cost of living and legal precedents.
The main legal point established is the proper assessment of disability, notional income, and application of legal precedents in determining compensation.
In motor accident claims, disability percentage assessed by Medical Board must be adopted if it affects lifelong earning capacity; arbitrary reduction by Tribunal without basis is erroneous, warranti....
The court applied the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA & OTHER v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another to determine the loss o....
The Court applied the multiplier method and adjusted notional income based on legal precedents to determine fair compensation for disability and loss of earnings.
The court has the authority to modify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the evidence and nature of the injury suffered by the appellant.
The assessment of disability and determination of compensation should consider the multiplier method and relevant Supreme Court judgments.
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.