Allowed

S.Loganathan v. Tamilnadu State Transport

Madras HC3 Jan 2017CMA/1515/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.69,000/- for fractures sustained in a TNSRTC accident. The court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,20,000/- by factoring in loss of enjoyment of amenities and disability.

What did the court decide?

The award is enhanced from Rs.69,000/- to Rs.1,20,00/- along with interest, and the respondents are directed to deposit the amount within four weeks.

S.Loganathan Vs Tamilnadu State Transport — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶5

C.M.A.No.1515 of 2014

¶6

S.Loganathan ... Appellant/Claimant

¶7

versus

¶8

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Villupuram Division – I, Villupuram. … Respondent/Respondent

¶9

Prayer : This Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.08.2009, made in M.C.O.P.No.2740 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.C.Senthilnathan For Respondent : Mr.D.Venkatachalam JUDGMENT

¶11

One Loganathan, who suffered fracture of Zygoma, fracture of mandible, fracture of pelvic bone and fracture on right hip, in the accident, that took place on 16.05.2002, has filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court of Small Causes), Chennai, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, as against which, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.69,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Challenging the award as inadequate, the claimant is before this Court.

¶12

The claimant, who was aged about 42 years at the time of accident, is a Turner by profession, earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶13

2.1. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the injured at Rs.4,500/- p.m. as there was no evidence to substantiate that he was running Moogambigai Turning Works and that on account of the accident, he sold the same.

¶14

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

¶15

2.2. The medical evidence would go to show that the claimant had taken treatment as inpatient from 16.05.2002 to 21.05.2002. Even though the result of fracture of pelvic bone is not stated in the case sheet, the Tribunal considered the fracture of other part of the body and thus, considered loss of earnings. Finding that he would not be in a position to do the job for two months, loss of earning capacity for two months has been considered by the Tribunal by awarding a sum of Rs.9,000/-.

¶16

2.3. No medical bills have been produced for medical expenses. The non-production of bills cannot mean that these two fractures would have been cured without spending money for medical expenses. With regard to the fracture, medical expenses of Rs.10,000/- is awarded.

¶17

2.4. Fracture on right zygoma and left mandible would certainly cause pain and sufferings and therefore, it is estimated at Rs.20,000/-.

¶18

2.5. The Doctor also spoke about the the difficulty of the claimant in swallowing food, standing, sitting and climbing up the stairs. The Doctor has certified the disability at 45%; by substantiating the same, by describing the difficulties in standing, sitting and climbing up the stairs. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation is right in contending that the disability sustained by the claimant would not have resulted in loss of earning capacity. However, this disability would cause of loss of enjoyment of amenities, which is estimated at Rs.20,000/-.

¶19

2.6. The disability compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. Therefore, it is estimated at Rs.50,000/- towards disablement compensation.

¶20

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that extra nourishment and transportation ought to have been considered by the Tribunal and it is awarded at Rs.5,000/- under each head.

¶21

3.2. The break-up details of the enhanced compensation read as under:

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

Loss of earning for two months Rs. 9,000/-

¶25

Medical Expenses Rs. 10,000/Transport Expenses - Rs. 5,000/-

¶26

Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-

¶27

Disability Rs. 50,000/-

¶28

Loss of enjoyment of amenities Rs. 20,000/-

¶29

Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/____________ -

¶30

Total Rs. 1,19,000/____________ -

¶31

Rounded off Rs. 1,20,000/-

¶32

1. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

¶33

allowed, enhancing the award amount from Rs.69,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/-, which is payable along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. (less the interest for the default period, if any). No costs.

¶34

The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, less the amount deposited if any, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit (less the interest for the default period, if any), within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimant/appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount.

¶35

Sd/Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ogy To

¶36

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division – I, Villupuram.

¶37

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

¶38

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Small Causes Court), Chennai.

¶39

+1cc to M/S.Senthil Swamy Associates, Advocate Sr.235 +1cc to Mr.K.J.Sivakumar, Advocate Sr.1115

¶40

C.M.A.No.1515 of 2014

¶41

ks[co]
srg 17/05/2017

¶42

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

S.Loganathan v. Tamilnadu State Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Loganathan v. Tamilnadu State Transport

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 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Yesodha

The Managing Director Vs Pandiarajan S.

M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs M/S Rani

M/S.R.J.R.Air Flowequiptments Vs Deputy Commissioner of Labour

V. Chandrasekaran Vs A.K. Azeem

Uthirakotti Vs the Managing Director