C.M.A.No.2006 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.09.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

C.M.A.No.2006 of 2017

Mohammed Jallaludeen S/o. Ibrahim

... Appellant

vs.

1. M/s. Jayaram Hotels Pvt. Ltd.,

2. National Insurance Co., Ltd.,

... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2016

made in M.A.C.T. No.152 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal / IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai for enhancement of

compensation.

For Appellant : Mr.V. Velu

For Respondents : Mr.D. Bhaskaran [for R2]

R1- Notice served.

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.2006 of 2017

ORDER

Not being satisfied by the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.

No.152 of 2013 dated 21.01.2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal / IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the claimant herein has

preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of

compensation.

2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of M.A.C.T. Rules, claiming a compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant / claimant in a

road traffic accident that occurred on 18.11.2012.

3. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of both sides and upon

considering the oral and documentary evidence, has granted

compensation of Rs.2,39,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of numbering of the petition, i.e.07.01.2013 till the date of deposit

fastening liability on the insurance company to pay compensation.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would

strenuously contend that the appellant, who was 48 years old at the

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.2006 of 2017

relevant point of time, was working as Car consultant, the notional income

fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,500/-, is very less. The appellant suffered

comminuted fracture of patella. Though, PW4, Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan has

assessed the disability of the appellant as 45%, the Tribunal has fixed the

disability at 20%, which is incorrect. The appellant has difficulties in

walking, squatting etc.,. Considering the nature of fracture sustained by the

appellant, only an amount of Rs.13,000/- was granted for loss of income

during the treatment period, which is in the lower side. It is his further

argument that the amount awarded for other heads are very less and

prayed for enhancement.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company would vehemently argue that for the disability assessed by PW4

Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan, is at 45%. The Tribunal has assessed at 20% and

the overall compensation granted by the Tribunal, appears to be

reasonable and hence the same may be confirmed.

6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing on both sides

and perused the entire materials on record.

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.2006 of 2017

7. At, on the claimant's side, PW1 to PW4 have been examined and

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 were marked. Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.15 are the

discharge summaries.

8. On the respondents' side, neither any oral evidence was let in nor

document was marked.

9. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 18.11.2012 at about 10.30

a.m., while he was travelling in his Alto Car bearing Registration No.TN07

AQ 9808 along ECR Road opposite to Thevaneri Ideal Beach, a Ford Figo

Car bearing Registration No.PY-01-BL-7979, came in a high speed and in

a rash and negligent manner dashed on his car and eventually he

sustained grievous injuries, which is not in dispute.

10. It could be seen from the medical records that the appellant was

admitted at Chettinad Hospitals, Chennai on 18.11.2012 and got

discharged on 20.11.2012. Thereafter, he took treatment as in-patient at

Soundara Pandian Bon