IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.03.2022

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

C.M.A.No.3614 of 2019

Suresh

.. Appellant / Petitioner

-Vs.-

1.Panimalar Engineering College,

No.4/26, P.K.Street, Gudapakkam,

Kandigai, Gudapakam,

Puduchathiram,

Chennai – 602 107.

(Since R1 remained exparte before the Tribunal, his presence

may be dispensed with)

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

No.216, Pragasam Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

...Respondents / Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Judgment and Decree

dated 17.07.2018 and made in M.A.C.T. O.P. No.2933 of 2016 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the IV Court of

Small Causes, Chennai.

For Appellant

:

M/s.A.Subadra

For Respondent-1

:

Exparte

For Respondent-2

:

Mr.K.Vinod

J U D G M E N T

The claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of

the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.2933 of 2016

dated 17.07.2018.

2. The grievance of the claimant is that the Tribunal had

not taken into consideration the fact that he has suffered

permanent disability, which has impaired his functioning as

before and ought to have adopted a multiplier method instead of

percentage basis, now taken. The learned counsel for the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

claimant would also submit that the amounts granted under the

head of pain and suffering and attender charges were rather low,

taking into account the fact that the claimant was in hospital

for about three days and another five days, spread over two

sessions.

3. Mr.K.Vinod, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

second respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the award

of the Tribunal below is very much in consonance with the

injuries suffered. He would submit that there is no proof let in

by the appellant to show that the injuries has resulted in

functional impairment. The injury that the appellant has

sustained is only to his right fore arm and the same has been

rectified through a surgery wherein, the mal-union was fixed by

an eight holed union D.C.P and by bone grafting, due to which,

wound has been closed by layers. The appellant has been

hospitalized initially for three days in the Chengalpet Medical

College Hospital, where no surgery had been undertaken and he

was only advised a chest physiotherapy and consumption of

medicines. Thereafter, he has been admitted in S.S. Hospital,

Dindigul for eight days, where he was admitted on 16.07.2015 and

surgery had been done on him on 17.07.2015 and was discharged on

21.07.2015. Therefore, he would submit that there is no

necessity to modify the order of the Tribunal.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for the second respondent. The first respondent

remained ex-parte before the Tribunal below.

5.

Admittedly, the appellant had been hospitalized first

for three days, where no surgery had been undertaken and

thereafter for five days, when a small procedure has been done

on the appellant. However, neither does the discharge summary

show that the appellant has suffered permanent disability nor

has the appellant let in any evidence to show that the accident

has resulted in his not being able to function as before.

Therefore, the appellant is only entitled to be compensated on a

percentage basis.

6.

Considering the fact that the claimant has been

hospitalized for eight days, percentage of disability can be

increased to 30% and the notional income to Rs.4,000/-.

Therefore, the amount under that head should be enhanced to a

sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 30) as against Rs.75,000/-.

Since he has been admitted for eight days, the attender charges

has to be enhanced to a sum of Rs.10