IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.09.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

C.M.A.No.1971 of 2008

Amalraj

...Appellant/ petitioner

Vs

1. Tmt.Loganayagi

2. The Manager,

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

No.7,

Thiru-V-Ka Industrial Estate,

Guindy,

Chennai – 600 032.

...Respondents/ Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173

of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award passed by the

Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District

Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Poonamallee in

MACTOP.No.586 of 2005 dated 19.09.2007.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj

for MR.V.Srinivasan

For Respondents : Mr.S.Vadivel for R2

JUDGMENT

The instant appeal has been filed by the claimant

seeking enhancement of compensation under the Award dated

19.09.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.III,

Poonamallee in MACTOP.No.586 of 2005.

2.The brief facts leading to the filing of the

instant appeal are as follows:

(i) The Appellant sustained injuries as a result of an

accident caused by a Water Tanker Mini Lorry bearing

Registration No.TN-05-M-4824 insured with the second

respondent and owned by the first respondent. As a result

of the accident, the Appellant sustained fracture in the

left leg, foot and right leg and also sustained multiple

injuries all over the body.

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

(ii) The Appellant preferred a claim before the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal in MACTOP.No.586 of 2005 seeking

compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, which was restricted to

4,50,000/- against the respondents. The Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, by its Award dated 19.09.2007 passed in

MACTOP.No.586 of 2005 directed the second respondent to pay

the Appellant a sum of Rs.72,351/- together with interest at

the rate of 7.5%, per annum from the date of petition till

the date of realisation.

(iii) Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Tribunal, the instant appeal has been filed by the

claim seeking enhancement of compensation.

3.Heard, Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel

appearing for Mr.V.Srinivasan on behalf of the Appellant and

Mr.S.Vadivel, learned Counsel for the second respondent.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant,

the Tribunal ought to have awarded a higher compensation

considering the nature of the Appellant's employment and the

injuries sustained by him. The learned Counsel for the

Appellant would submit that the Appellant was a collection

clerk and he was earning Rs.4000/- per month and he

sustained disability of 40% and he was only 36 years at the

time of accident.

5. Considering all these factors, the learned Counsel

for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal ought to have

applied the multiplier method while assessing the

compensation and should have awarded a higher sum towards

loss of income, during the period of his treatment and

towards pain and suffering, transportation and extra

nourishment and towards loss of amenities.

6. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant,

the Tribunal has erroneously fix the disability compensation

on percentage basis and not by applying multiplier method.

7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the second

respondent insurance company would submit that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just compensation.

He would further submit that even though as per the

disability certificate produced by the Appellant before the

Tribunal, his disability was assessed only at 40 %, but the

Tribunal has awarded compensation based on 45% disability.

Therefore, according to him, the Appellant has been

adequately compensated.

8. This Court after having considered the materials

available on record and after examining the impugned a