Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. R. Murugan

Madras HC10 Jul 2015CMA/1408/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against a specific component of compensation. The court reduced the disability percentage from 75% to 45% based on medical evidence but enhanced income and certain loss components, confirming the net award amount.

What did the court decide?

Total award confirmed at Rs. 9,50,000/- with 7.5% annual interest; appellant directed to deposit amount payable to claimant/fixed deposit scheme.

The Managing Director Vs R. Murugan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.7.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

CMA.No.1408 of 2015

¶6

The Managing Director, Taminadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram-Division-III) Ltd., Kancheepuram. ...Appellant/Respondent Versus R.Murugan ...Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989 (ACTIV of 1939) against the judgement and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai ( in the VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in M.C.O.P.1940 of 2012 dated 28.10.2013.

¶7

For Appellant : Mr.P.Paramasivadoss
For Respondent : Mr.A.A.Venkatesan
JUDGMENT

¶8

The appeal has been preferred by the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation against the amount of Rs.9,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident occurred on 30.01.2012.

¶9

Heard Mr.P.Paramasivadoss learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.A.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The only question to be decided in the appeal is quantum of compensation and therefore, the question for negligence is not gone into.

¶10

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

¶11

In the accident occurred on 30.01.2012, the respondent/claimant suffered, crush injury in the right thigh, crush injury over right forearm, abrasion over right upper limb and laceration in the right hand. It is also proved by medical records namely, Exs.P3 to P9. He was operated on three times including plastic surgery conducted in the Government General Hospital, Chennai. He was hospitalized as inpatient from 31.1.2012 to 21.4.2012 for the period of three months. Ex.P7-OP sheet issued by the General Hospital, Kancheepuram District would prove that the respondent/claimant has been continuously taking treatment for the injuries sustained by him. The tissue in the thigh region has been harvested and skin crafting was done. The entire right thigh region and abdomen area got damaged affecting his genital parts resulting in loss of marital enjoyment.

¶12

PW2-Doctor deposed that 45% disability was sustained by the claimant. Towards disability, Rs.2000/- per each percentage of disability, a sum of Rs.90,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Since the accident occurred in the year 2012, instead of awarding Rs.2000/-, Rs.3000/- is awarded enhancing the award amount towards disability from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,35,000/-. Rs.54,000/- awarded towards loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.25,000/awarded towards loss of amenities; and Rs.50,000/- awarded towards attender charges are all confirmed. Only Rs.40,000/- was awarded towards transportation, extra-nourishment and damage to cloths. Therefore, this Court court awards Rs.50,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.25,000/- towards transportation and damage to cloths. Rs.40,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.

¶13

PW2 Doctor spoke about 45% disability. The Tribunal committed grave error in re fixing the disability at 75%. In the absence of any factor or evidence to come to the conclusion that the claimant sustained 75% disability, the Tribunal unilaterally fixed 75% disability and hence the same is not sustainable. Therefore, this court redetermines the disability at 45% as per evidence of PW2. Rs.4500/- determined by the Tribunal as monthly income is low. Even in the year 2012, it is impossible to get a manual labour for less than Rs.6000/- per month. Therefore, this court redetermines the monthly income at Rs.6000/- and adopts the multiplier as done by the Tribunal at 16 and calculates the compensation as follows:

¶14

Rs.6000 X 12 X 16 X 45 /100 = Rs.5,18,400/-.

¶15

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

¶16

As already observed, the claimant cannot perform marital obligation to his wife and it would amount to loss of enjoyment of marital life. Therefore ,a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded. Totally a sum of Rs.9,57,400/- is awarded rounded to Rs.9,50,000/-. The award of the Tribunal Rs.9,50,000/- is confirmed in the above manner. 7.5% per annum interest awarded by the Tribunal stands confirmed.

¶17

The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest and costs within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order and on such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to pay 50% of the total award amount along with interest and costs and the balance 50% of award amount is directed to be deposited in an interest bearing fixed deposit in Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Chennai atleast for a period of five years. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount along with interest and costs. For the Remaining 50% of the deposited amount, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest amount, once in three months.

¶18

The appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently the
connected M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vk
To

¶19

The Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (in the VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai)

¶20

1 CC to Mr.P.Paramasivadoss, Advocate SR.No. 35295 1 CC to Mr.A.A.Venkatesan, Advocate SR.No. 34961 C.M.A.No.1408 of 2015 UG (CO) PSI (12.08.2015)

¶21

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

The Managing Director v. R. Murugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. R. Murugan

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

The Managing Director Vs Sivagami

The Managing Director Vs Devagi

Kathija Begum Vs Nizamudeen

The Managing Director Vs Sivagami

Mahalingam 47 Years Vs Pitchai

P.N.Angayarkanni Vs D.Sureshkumar