Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Mollagounder

Madras HC15 Jul 2014CMA/727/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed the Motor Accidents Appeal in part, reducing the award for disability from Rs. 1,71,600 to Rs. 1,30,000 by disallowing the use of the multiplier method. The total compensation was modified from Rs. 2,52,400 to Rs. 2,10,800.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs. 2,52,400 to Rs. 2,10,800; appellant entitled to recover excess; respondent permitted modified amount with interest.

The Managing Director Vs Mollagounder — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.07.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

The Managing Director

¶6

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Bharathipuram, Salem Main Road, Dharmapuri, formerly known as

¶7

The Managing Director, Annai Sathiya Transport Corporation, Bharathipuram, Salem Main Road, Dharmapuri. ...Appellant

¶8

..vs..

¶9

Mollagounder ...Respondent

¶10

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 17.10.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.287 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Dharmapuri.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.N.Anand

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.M.Selvam

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation of Rs.2,52,400/awarded to the respondent/claimant, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Dharmapuri, in and by award dated 17.10.2003, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.

¶15

2.The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation submitted that the present appeal has been filed questioning the quantum of compensation alone. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation, this

¶16

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

¶17

Court is not dealing with the other aspects of the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶18

3.So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the respondent/Claimant that on account of the accident, that had occurred on 18.02.1997 at 10.15 am, he had sustained fracture on his both legs, as a result of which his right leg was shortened by one centimeter. Hence, he made a claim for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation.

¶19

4.In order to prove the disability, on the side of the respondent/claimant, one Dr.Ashok Kumar was examined as P.W.2, who had assessed the disability suffered by the claimant at 65%. Based on the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal, by fixing the disability suffered by the claimant at 65%, by taking a sum of Rs.2,000/- as monthly income of the claimant and by applying the multiplier of 11, based on the age of the claimant, calculated a sum of Rs.2,64,000/as income of the claimant. Thereafter, by deducting 35% of the said amount, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,71,600/- towards the 65% disability suffered by the claimant.

¶20

5.Now, it is the grievance of the appellant/Transport Corporation that this is not a fit case to apply multiplier method. According to the Transport Corporation, the amount of Rs.1,71,600/awarded by the Tribunal under the head of disability is on the higher side and therefore, proper deduction has to be made under the said head.

¶21

6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant made his submissions supporting the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶22

7.Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the materials available on record, I find that on account of the accident, the claimant had sustained fracture on his both legs. Further, the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor would show that the right leg of the claimant has been shortened by one centimeter. Therefore, the assessment of the disability at 65% made by the Doctor-P.W.2 cannot be found fault with. By applying the multiplier of 11, by taking a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as monthly income, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,71,600/- in proportion to 65% disability suffered by the victim. But, considering the nature of disability suffered by the claimant/victim, I am of the opinion, it is not a fit case to apply the multiplier method.

¶23

8.Normally, the Tribunals are awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- for each percentage of disability. Even in this case, a sum of Rs.2,000/- for each percentage of disability could be awarded to arrive at a just and proper compensation. Hence, if a sum of

¶24

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

¶25

Rs.2,000/- is awarded for each percentage of disability, the amount so calculated for 65% of disability, comes to Rs.1,30,000/-. Hence, a sum of Rs.1,71,600/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of disability is hereby reduced to a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. Except this modification, the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed in respect of all other aspects.

¶26

9.Consequently, the compensation amount of Rs.2,52,400/awarded by the Tribunal is hereby modified and reduced to a sum of Rs.2,10,800/-. Break up details of the modified compensation amount are as follows:-

¶27

10.With the above modification, the Appeal is partly allowed. It is represented that the entire award amount, as awarded by the Tribunal, has already been deposited by the Transport Corporation. Hence, the appellant/Transport Corporation is entitled to withdraw the excess amount, more than that of the modified award amount. The respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount of Rs.2,10,800/- (Rupees two lakhs ten thousand and eight hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit, after deducting the amount if any already withdrawn by him. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) Dated: 23.07.2014 //True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

ssv

¶31

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

¶32

Copy to

¶33

The Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Dharmapuri.

¶34

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶35

1 CC to Mr.N.Anand, Advocate SR.No. 31331
1 CC to Mr.M.Selvam, Advocate SR.No. 31012
C.M.A.No.727 of 2010
and M.P.No.1 of 2010
NM (CO)
PSI (23.07.2014)

¶36

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

The Managing Director v. Mollagounder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Mollagounder

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

M/S Bajaj Allianz General Vs Baby

M/S Shriram General Vs N.Manoharan

N.P.Moorthy Vs Karanam Venkata Subbaiah

Suba @ Kalaivani Vs J.Nirmal Babu

The Manager, Vs Mrs.Selvi

N.Harikrishnan Vs Senthilkumar