Advocates:
['M/S U M RAVICHANDRAN', '', 'KA BASUBRAMANIAN', 'M/S I MALAR', '', 'R - V KRISHNAMOORTHY']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.10.2019

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1842 of 2006

K.Shanmugam

... Appellant / Claimant

..vs..

1. V.Krishnamurthy, Proprietor,

Aviation Express,

No.142 Eldams Road, Teynampet,

Chennai 600 018

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

B.O.012601 Appasamy Towers,

II Floor, Pondy Bazar,

Chennai 600 017

... Respondents /

Respondents before the Tribunal.

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988,

against the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.09.2004 made in

M.C.O.P.No.201 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.IV, Additional District Court,

Poonamallee.

For Appellant

:

Mr. U.M.Ravichandran

For Respondent-1 :

No Appearance

For Respondent-2 :

Mrs. I.Malar.

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the

appellant / claimant as against the award passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court / Fast Track

Court No.IV, Poonamallee, in MCOP No.201 of 2003.

2. According to the appellant / claimant, on 21.04.2003 when

he was riding his M-80 Motorcycle, near DC Road, Meenambakkam,

in GST Road, the Ambassidor Car belonging to the first

respondent, which was driven by its driver, came at a high speed

and hit the claimant and the pillion rider. Due to the said

impact, the claimant fell down and sustained fracture on left

ankle, besides receiving multiple injuries all over the body.

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

Stating so, he has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal

claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as total compensation.

3. The Tribunal, after elaborate trial, has held that the

accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the

part of the driver of the Ambassidor Car belonging to the first

respondent herein and insured with the second respondent /

Insurance Company as well as the claimant and fixed the

contributory negligence at 60% and 40% on them and ultimately

arrived at the total compensation at Rs.65,880/-. Accordingly,

the Tribunal after deducting 40% from the said quantum towards

contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, has

directed the Insurer to pay a sum of Rs.39,500/- along with

interest and costs. Branding the quantum so awarded as

disproportionate to the nature of the injuries sustained and

lesser, the claimant / appellant has preferred this Appeal,

seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant / claimant,

the learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance

Company and perused the records. Despite serving the notice on

the first respondent and his name having been printed in the

cause list, there is no appearance on his behalf.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant / claimant

submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing 40% contributory

negligence on the claimant, since there is no concrete evidence

or document to speak about the involvement of the claimant in

the accident due to the fact that he was in drunken state;

considering the fact that the claimant has suffered bi-

Malleolous left ankle injuries and other serious injuries in all

over the body, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation

towards loss of income, loss of amenities and attendant charges;

further the amount awarded towards transportation expenses and

extra nourishment is too low; in any event, the total amount of

compensation arrived at by the Tribunal needs substantial

enhancement.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent

/ Insurance Company submitted that Ex.P-10-Wound Certificate,

coupled with the evidence of P.W.2-Dr.N.Saichandran would

establish the fact that, at the time of accident, the claimant

was in a drunken state and hence, the Tr