IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
Murali - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Sree Balaji Blocks, Prop. R. Manjunatha – Respondent
C.M.A.No. 2584 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2006
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident facts and tribunal's initial award. (Para 4) |
| 2. claimant seeks higher compensation. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by the appellant /claimant for enhancement of the sum awarded in M.C.O.P. No.262 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosur.
2. Shortly stated, on 20.08.2018 at about 8 a.m., the appellant /petitioner was travelling as pillion rider in a TVS Star City Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-70-V-9817, which was ridden by his friend Ajith Kumar. While they were proceeding towards Hosur, on Attibele Andhivadi Check post road, on Nangapuram Railway Flyover Bridge, a Bharat Benz Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-9844, belongs to the 1st respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle in which the appellant/petitioner was travelling, as a result of which, the appellant and his friend fell down and sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to Government Hospital, Hosur. The appellant / petitioner was treated as inpatient and was discharged on 28.08.2018. A case has been registered against the driver of the lorry in Cr.No.244/2018 under Section 279, 337, 338 IPC. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the said lorry. 3. The claimant filed the above MCOP claiming compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.7,15,506/- after deducting 10% towards negligence on the part of the deceased rider of the two wheeler, since he did not posses driving license at the time of accident and directed the 2nd respondent Insurance Company to pay the said amount to the appellant / petitioner, at the first instance and then recover the same from the 1st respondent / owner of the lorry, since the driver of the 1st respondent lorry had no valid driving license at the time of accident.
4. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would contend that the appellant/ petitioner had sustained Right leg tibia bone fracture near knee joint, right ankle fracture with bone loss, deep lacerated wound on the right leg exposing tendons, Pain, swelling, tenderness of right leg and right foot and ROM of right leg painful and restricted and was assessed permanent disability at 60% by the Medical Board. He would further submit that, without taking into consideration the serious nature of injuries, the Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre amount of Rs.2,40,000/- towards partial permanent disability by applying per percentage method instead of multiplier method. Further, the appellant has spent more than Rs.6,00,000/- towards hospitalization and other expenses. Hence prayed for enhancement of compensation.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent /Insurance Company submitted that, the Tribunal has considered the materials on record and had awarded 'just compensation' which requires any interference by this Court.
7. Heard on both sides. Records perused.
8. On a perusal of records it is seen that, as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P11 discharge summaries, the petitioner has sustained Type II hawkins talus fracture with bone loss over lateral aspect of right talus (Type III B gustilo Anderson), right proximal tibia lateral condyle Talus neck fracture fixation with screws, lateral condyle fracture proximal tibia with plate and CC Srew and plastic surgery procedure was conducted on 20.08.2018 and the medical board has assessed 60% partial permanent disability. It is not in dispute that the injured was


In motor accident injury claims, distinguish physical disability percentage from functional loss of earning capacity; apply multiplier method assessing impact on victim's profession and age for equit....
The ascertainment of future loss of income or earning capacity should consider various factors and should not be automatic. The extent of permanent disability and its effect on earning capacity are c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method for calculating loss of earning capacity and the consideration of future prospects for self-employed indiv....
The Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier method for calculating compensation, emphasizing that the percentage of permanent disability is not the sole determinant of loss of earning capacity, con....
The main legal point established is the application of the multiplier method and consideration of the claimant's occupation and permanent disability to assess and enhance the compensation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method in determining just compensation for disability and loss of earning capacity under the Motor Vehicles Act,....
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.