Partly allowed

P.Venkatachalapathy v. v.Srinivasan

Madras HC3 Aug 2017CMA/1527/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appellate court enhanced compensation awarded to a motor accident victim below the statutory limit for permanent disability. Relying on medical evidence, it fixed the disability at 50% instead of the Tribunal's implied lower figure, increasing the monetary award significantly while condoning filing delay.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.83,000/- to Rs.1,96,500/-. Second respondent directed to deposit balance within six weeks with interest.

P.Venkatachalapathy Vs v.Srinivasan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.08.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

P.Venkatachalapathy .. Appellant/Petitioner

¶6

Vs. 1. V.Srinivasan 2. The National Insurance Co. Ltd., 751, III-Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. .. Respondent/Respondents

¶7

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 28.12.2005 and made in M.C.O.P.No.533 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.5), Tiruvallur.

¶8

The appellant herein is the claimant in the Tribunal has come forward with this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶9

The accident had occurred on 07.05.2004 when the appellant, aged 21 years at the relevant time, and working as turner in a lathe industry, while driving in his motor cycle bearing No.TN-04-V-4215 along Medavakkam - Sholinganallur road, an auto belonging to the 1^st respondent insured with the 2^nd respondent dashed against him. In the said accident the claimant suffered fracture of left frontal bone, shoulder bone as well as one of his fingers. For the said injuries, he moved the Tribunal with a claim of Rs.2,00,000/- and considering the evidence before it, the Tribunal has passed an award for Rs.83,000/-. Contending that the compensation awarded is inadequate, the claimant has moved this Court with the present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶10

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the fracture that the victim had suffered to his shoulder has affected the movement of his shoulder that it functionally affected his career. Besides fracture his left skull frontal bone has led to loss of memory which combined with the physical injury he had suffered, has affected his livelihood and to bring about a growth in his chosen occupation. Hence, argued the counsel, that the disability suffered by the appellant must be treated as functional disability. He also brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has filed C.M.P.No.1302 of 2017 for enhancement of compensation on these lines. He added that the Tribunal has not only ignored this aspect, but has also been insensitive in its approach even in awarding compensation on non-pecuniary heads.

¶11

Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent argued that going by the standard of living prevailed at the time of accident, on 2004, the Tribunal has justly valued it.

¶12

The Tribunal has noticed that the appellant has suffered fracture on the shoulder bone besides fracture of the left frontal bone and it granted Rs.35,000/- towards injuries suffered by the appellant. In fact, PW2 Doctor assessed disability at fixed at 55% and the Tribunal has not offered any reason why and how it arrived at Rs.35,000/- as compensation for the disability.

¶13

On a careful reading of the evidence on record, more particularly the evidence of PW2 Doctor along with Ext.P-6 discharge summary, this Court does not find any material to find that the nature of disability suffered by the appellant constituted functional disability. However, giving 5% provision to the extent of personal disability assessed by P.W.2 Doctor, this court fixes the same as 50% and at Rs.2,500/- per percentage of disability, the compensation payable on the head of permanent disability is determined at Rs.1,25,000/-. The compensation and other heads are marginally increased and the final break up of compensation determined is as follows:

¶14

Heads	Amount awarded (Rs.)
Towards Personal Disability	1,25,000.00
Towards Medical	6,500.00
Expenses
Towards pain and sufferring	50,000.00

¶15

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

¶16

Heads	Amount awarded (Rs.)
Loss of amenities	10,000.00
Towards	5,000.00
transportation
Total	1,96,500.00

¶17

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation is accordingly increased from Rs.83,000/- to 1,96,500/- and the 2^nd respondent is hereby directed to deposit the same less the amount if any, already deposited with interest at 7.5% p.a., within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same forthwith. The learned counsel for the appellant has brought to the notice of this Court that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 501 days which was condoned. The appellant would not be entitled to any interest for the delay period. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssn To: 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court No.5), Tiruvallur.

¶19

+1cc to M/s.Anand & Surya Advocates sr.55488

¶20

+1cc to Mr.Chandran, Advocate sr.55845

¶21

C.M.A.No.1527 of 2009 and C.M.P.No.1302 of 2017

¶22

mg(co) ss(28/10/2017)

¶23

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

P.Venkatachalapathy v. v.Srinivasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Venkatachalapathy v. v.Srinivasan

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Indhira (Since Deceased)

K.Kuppan Vs P.Sengottavel

The Commanding Officer Vs Vadivel (Died)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs S.Mariappan

Vs

Corporation Bank Vs S.G.Sundararajan