IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.10.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

C.M.A.No.3435 of 2013

Elangovan .. Appellant/Petitioner

..Vs..

1.Lingam

2.The Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

No.46, Katpadi Salai,

Vellore

..Respondents/Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree

dated 28.02.2012 and made in MACTOP.No.75 of 2009 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Thiruvannamalai.

For Appellant

: Mr.F.Terry Chellaraja

For Respondent 2

: Mrs.R.Vijayakamala

Respondent 1 set exparte

J U D G M E N T

The instant appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation under the impugned Award dated

28.02.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai) in MACTOP.No.75 of 2009.

The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are

as follows:-

2. The Appellant sustained injuries as a result of an

accident that took place on 15.09.2008 caused by a bus bearing

registration No.TN31-Q-5799 owned by the first respondent and

insured with the second respondent. The Appellant preferred a

claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACTOP.No.75

of 2009 seeking a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal by its Award dated 28.02.2012 in

MACTOP.No.75 of 2009, directed the second respondent to pay the

Appellant a sum of Rs.65,000/- together with interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of

realisation.

3. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimant

seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

4. Heard, Mr.F.Terry Chellaraja learned counsel for the

Appellant and Mrs.R.Vijayakamala, learned counsel for the second

respondent. The first respondent has remained ex parte both

before the Tribunal as well as before this Court.

5. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, the

Appellant was aged 40 years and was working as a clerk in a

provision store at the time of the Accident. The learned counsel

for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant sustained rib

fracture, but under the Award, the Tribunal has awarded an

inadequate compensation to the Appellant. According to the

learned counsel for the Appellant, even though the Doctor

assessed the disability of the Appellant at 30% as per Ex.P5,

the Tribunal has erroneously awarded only a sum of Rs.30,000/-

as disability compensation. Further, the learned counsel for the

Appellant submitted that the compensation awarded to the

Appellant under various other heads is also inadequate.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent

would submit that no relevant documents were produced by the

Appellant before the Tribunal to prove the nature of injuries

sustained by the Appellant as a result of the accident caused by

the insured vehicle. According to the learned counsel for the

second respondent, the discharge summary from the hospital was

also not filed by the Appellant to prove that he was

hospitalised for a period of time. According to the learned

counsel for the second respondent, the compensation awarded to

the Appellant under the impugned Award is a just compensation.

7. This Court after having considered the materials

available on record and after examining the impugned Award and

after hearing the submissions of the respective counsels and

after personally seeing the Appellant in open Court, observes

the following:

a) The Appellant in his claim petition as well as in his

deposition has stated that he has sustained fractures of 6^t