CMA(MD).No.28 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 26.10.2022

Pronounced on : 13.12.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

C.M.A. (MD).No.28 of 2022

Arunachalam

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,

Through its Managing Director,

Office at No.2,Trivandrum Road,

Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli.

2. Raju

3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,

Through its Branch Manager,

Office at TC 28/2222(5) "Anugraha",

2nd Floor,M.G.Road,Pazhavangadi,

Trivandrum-695 023.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgment and decree made in

M.C.O.P.No.835 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

1/11

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

CMA(MD).No.28 of 2022

Tribunal Authority, (Special Sub Court Dealing with MCOP Cases/ Special

Sub Judge), Tirunelveli, dated 30-10-2019.

For Appellant

: Mr.J.Selva Kumaran

For R1

: Mr.R.Raja Mohan

For R2

: No Appearance

For R3

: Mr. N.Shylappa Kalyan

* * * * *

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award

passed in MCOP.No. 835 of 2016, dated 30.10.2019, on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Court Dealing with MCOP

Cases/ Special Sub Judge), Tirunelveli.

2.The appellant/claimant, who was awarded with a compensation of

Rs.2,12,275/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs, for the disability

suffered by him, consequent to an accident occurred on 22.08.2015,

challenged the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal and

claimed enhancement of the same.

2/11

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

CMA(MD).No.28 of 2022

3.The main contention of the appellant/claimant is that he suffered

united fracture in left calcaneum and right foot with implant insitu,

compound fracture dislocation of lisfranc joint right foot and comminuted

fracture of left calcaneum, that the Medical Officer has fixed the disability

at 23.3%, that the claimant was aged 55 years at the time of accident, that

he is working as a Conductor in the Government and that he has suffered

functional disability.

4.During trial, the claimant has examined himself as PW.1 and two

Medical Officers namely, Dr.Ramesh and Dr.Poovalingam as PW.2 and

PW.3 respectively and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P1 to P13. The first

respondent/Transport Corporation has examined their Driver namely,

Manoharan as RW.1 and adduced no document any evidence. The learned

trial Judge upon considering the evidence, both oral and documentary and

on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has passed the impugned

award, dated 30.10.2019, holding that the first respondent/Transport

Corporation is liable and directed them to pay a compensation of Rs.

2,12,275 with interest 7.5% per annum and costs. Aggrieved by the said

3/11

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

CMA(MD).No.28 of 2022

award, the claimant has come forward with the present Appeal.

5.The points that arise for consideration are:

(i)Whether the Tribunal erred in deciding that the claimant has not

suffered functional disability and hence, the multiplier method for

determination of compensation cannot be applied?

(ii)Whether the quantum of compensation awarded at by the

Tribunal is just and proper and is in accordance with law?

6.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend

that the claimant has suffered crush injury on his right foot, that there were

dislocation of joints, that there was a fracture in the calcaneum bone, that

he is unable to walk and he is experiencing severe pain while walking, that

the medical officer has fixed the disability at 23.3% and that considering

the age and avocation of the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have held that

the petitioner has suffered functional disability and on that basis, ought to

have adopted and applied the multiplier method.