Partly allowed

Nagappan v. T.D.Sivaraman

Madras HC15 Jul 2013CMA/1286/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a partial appeal filed by a motor accident victim against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court found the initial award low considering a 60% disability and ordered additional compensation totaling Rs. 45,000 with interest to be deposited by the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 45,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a. awarded to be deposited by the respondent insurer.

Nagappan Vs T.D.Sivaraman — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.07.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.1286 of 2004

¶6

Nagappan ... Appellant

¶7

Vs.
1.T.D.Sivaraman
2.The Manager
United India Insurance Compamy
Madras-2 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
27.09.2002, made in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 1999, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track
Court No.V, Chengalpet, at Tiruvallur.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.G.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.K.Padmanabhan for R2 R1-Given up J U D G M E N T

¶9

The appellant / claimant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2002, made in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpet, at Tiruvallur.

¶10

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

¶11

The claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpet, at Tiruvallur, claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

¶12

It was submitted that on 15.05.1998, at about 05.00 a.m., when the claimant was proceeding on Tiruvallur High Road, the

¶13

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

¶14

driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TSB 2910, belonging to the first respondent, driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries and taken treatment from Dr.Baskar, Medical Officer, Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Chennai from 15.05.1998 to 01.06.1998 and is suffering from permanent disability. Hence, the claimant had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TSB 2910.

¶15

The second respondent Insurance Company had filed a counter affidavit and resisted the claim petition. They had denied that the said accident had been committed by the driver of the first respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TSB 2910. Further, they had denied that the driver of the lorry had a valid driving licence and that the lorry was covered under valid vehicular records at the time of accident.

¶16

On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely:

¶17

i. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TSB 2910? and

¶18

ii. What is the fair and reasonable compensation, which the claimant is entitled to receive?

¶19

On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4 namely discharge summary, disability certificate, X'ray report and copy of FIR. On the respondents' side no witness was let in and no document was marked.

¶20

P.W.1 the claimant had adduced evidence that on 15.05.1998, at about 05.00 a.m., when he was proceeding on Tiruvallur High Road, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TSB 2910, belonging to the first respondent, driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Further, he had adduced evidence that due to the accident, he had sustained grievous injuries. At the time of accident, he was aged about 60 years and was a Labourer at Brick Works Chamber. Further, he had adduced that he had undergone treatment at K.M.C.Hospital.

¶21

P.W.2 Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained head injuries and he had assessed the disability at 60%. Further, he had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained injuries on his right shoulder and chest.

¶22

On considering the evidences of the witnesses and on perusing the exhibits marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the claimant and

¶23

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

¶24

directed the second respondent Insurance Company to pay the said award amount, with costs, within a period of two months from the date of it's order.

¶25

Not being satisfied by the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the claimant had sustained skull injuries besides bone fracture injuries on his right shoulder, contusion in his chest and both sides iliac. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he is unable to do his work as a Labourer at a Brick Chamber. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 60%. However, the negligence and liability have been proved against the driver and Insurance Company. As such the claimant is entitled to get adequate compensation. However, the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the relevant heads.

¶27

The very competent counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the claimant had sustained simple injuries and he had been hospitalized for a period of three days at K.M.C.Hospital. The Doctor had assessed the disability of the claimant at 60%, which is on the higher side , as it had been fixed arbitrarily, without authenticated medical records. However, the quantum of compensation of Rs.25,000/- that has been granted by the Tribunal is an adequate one.

¶28

On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence and liability. However, the quantum of compensation is on the lower side, since the Doctor, in his evidence, had deposed that the claimant had sustained skull injuries that the claimant had sustained 60% disability and also considering that the claimant is a Labourer, involved in brick chamber work. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant additional compensation as follows:

¶29

i. Rs.40,000/- is awarded for disability, ii. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering, iii. Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards transport expenses, iv. Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards attender charges, v. Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards nutrition, and vi. Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards loss of earning during medical treatment and convalescence period.

¶30

In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation to the claimant. After subtracting the initial compensation amount of Rs.25,000/-, this Court awards Rs.45,000/- as additional compensation to the claimant, as it is found to be appropriate in

¶31

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

¶32

the instant case. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.

¶33

This Court directs the second respondent Insurance Company to execute this Court's Judgment, by way of depositing the additional compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.75 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpet, at Tiruvallur, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶34

After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.75 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpet, at Tiruvallur, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment.

¶35

In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly
allowed and the Judgment and decree dated 27.09.2002, made in
M.C.O.P.No.75 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V,
Chengalpet, at Tiruvallur, is modified. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Additional District Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Additional District Court
Fast Track Court No.V
Chengalpet, at Tiruvallur
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court
Madras
1 CC to Mr.G.Karthikeyan Advocate, SR.No.35626
1 CC to Mr.K.Padmanabhan Advocate, SR.No.36075
C.M.A.No.1286 of 2004
CNR(CO)
JJM (27.12.2013)

¶36

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

Nagappan v. T.D.Sivaraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagappan v. T.D.Sivaraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.K.Ashok Vs K.Puttusamy

D.Kumar, Vs R.Jayakumar

The National Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs Saiman

K.E.Jayaraman, Vs R.Balakrishnan

A.Kanakaraj Vs N.L.Char

The M.D., Vs a.Renuka