Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
B.Poongodi - Appellant
Versus
S.Ranganathan - Respondent
C.M.A.No.3287 of 2021
Decided on : 06-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Sakkarapani
For the Respondent: Mr.J.Chandran
Compensation for disability must reflect the impact on the claimant's professional ability, particularly in specialized fields such as surgery.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation in motor accidents - Claim for enhancement of awarded compensation due to disability - Injury caused reduced the claimant's functional ability as a Surgeon, warranting a reassessment of disability. (Paras 10, 12)
(B) Quantum of Compensation - Factors for calculating income and future prospects - The tribunal's award for various heads, adjusted accordingly based on the claimant's professional capabilities and confirmed savings on other compensations. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The claimant, a General Surgeon, suffered injuries in a road accident, resulting in 38% disability affecting her surgical functions, while the initial tribunal award was insufficient.
Findings of Court:
The compensation is adjusted significantly from the original amount of Rs.6,60,500/- to Rs.18,97,011/- due to the direct impact of disability on her profession.
Issues: The court discussed the appropriate method for calculating disability and compensation for the claimant's income as a professional.
Ratio Decidendi: It was determined that the 38% disability directly interferes with the claimant's surgical capacity, justifying the adjustment in compensation.
Result: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. aggrieved claimant challenges compensation amount. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. determination of initial compensation due to the road accident. (Para 3) |
| 3. claimant's disability significantly impacts her profession. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. details of claimant's injuries and disability assessments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. determination of compensation based on income and disability. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. final compensation enhanced and award modified. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Dharmapuri, injured/claimant has come before this Court.
2. It is not in dispute that injured/claimant met with a road accident on 08.06.2014, while travelling in a car owned by 1st respondent insured with 2nd respondent. Both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as 2nd respondent have not advanced any arguments on the question of negligence and liability aspects. Therefore, necessary facts for considering those questions are not discussed in this judgment. The appeal is confined only to the question of quantum of compensation.
3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant was examined as PW.1 and no one was examined on the side of the respondents.
4. Based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,60,500/- in favour of the claimant. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come by way of this appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant vehemently contended that due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the claimant's left hand fingers got affected and the Medical Board opined that she suffered 38% disability due to the restriction in the finger movements. It is submitted that claimant is a General Surgeon and her disability in fingers would interfere with her profession as a Surgeon and therefore, the Tribunal committed a serious error in adopting percentage method.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submitted that as per Ex.X1-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, the claimant suffered Locomotor Disability of 38% in the fingers. The disability suffered in the fingers shall be converted for whole body and therefore, the disability assessed by Medical Board shall be proportionately reduced.
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant/claimant is a qualified Surgeon. Ex.P10 is the Master of Surgery Degree Certificate obtained by the claimant. PW.1 in her evidence clearly deposed that she is a Surgeon running a hospital along with her husband. Ex.X1 is the Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board. A perusal of the same would suggest that the claimants suffered following injuries:-
(i) Right temporal sylvian fissure left zygoma fracture.
(ii) Fracture Left Proximal humerus.
(iii) Fracture II Metacarpal Neck.
(iv) Right distal radius fracture.
(v) Right V Metacarpal Fracture.
8. The Medical Board opined that claimant suffered following disabilities:-
(i) Ophthalmology - 40% Temporary Disability
(ii) Dental - 10% disability
(iii) Locomotor disability (physiatrist opinion) - 38% disability Total Disabilities 64%.
9. A close perusal of Ex.X1-Disability Certificate would indicate that Ophthalmology Disability of 40% is mentioned as Temporary Disability. Therefore, it need not be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing compensation under the head of disability. The disability of 10%, Dental Disability will not interfere with the activity of the claimant as a Surgeon. Therefore, the same can be ignored. The Locomotor Disability of 38% concerning the fingers of the claimant will certainly interfere with her activities as a General Surgeon. The Medical Board further observed that there is a complaint of pain in the left shoulder region and claimant is not able to use the left index finger normally since there is functional limitation. The Orthopaedic Surgeon observed in the disability
