Partly allowed

R.Kalidoss v. T.Jawahar

Madras HC11 Jun 2019CMA/1485/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, set aside the Tribunal's award of Rs. 16,000/- for a motor accident injury. The court accepted Dr. evidence of 25% disability, remanded the compensation heads, and enhanced the total to Rs. 1,00,000/- including permanent disability, pain and suffering, and medical expenses.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 16,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified sum.

R.Kalidoss Vs T.Jawahar — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.1485 of 2006

¶6

R.Kalidoss ..Appellant / Petitioner

¶7

¶8

T.Jawahar
2. K.Elangovan
(R1 and R2 were set exparte in the
Trial Court. Notice dispensed with)
3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Motor Third Party Claims Office,
No.15, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ..Respondents
Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against
the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2005 made in MACTOP No.4456
of 2002 on the file of the III Judge, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Small Causes Court), Chennai.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.R.Aravindhan for M/s.C & K Law Firm For Respondents : Mr.D.Baskaran for R3 JUDGMENT

¶10

This appeal is preferred by the claimant against the award of a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards compensation due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

¶11

On the fateful day, ie. on 31.08.2002, at about 20.30 hours, the appellant was proceeding in his bicycle along the Velachery Main Road, Chennai from North to South direction. When he was nearing Gurunanak College, a Tempo Van bearing Reg.No.TAO-3790 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant. Due to the said impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. On consideration of the materials

¶12

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

¶13

and evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition.

¶14

3.Challenging the same, the appellant -claimant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶15

4.The learned counsel for the appellant /claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards loss of income during the treatment period, when there is a categorical evidence to that effect. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded towards transport to hospital and extra nourishment are very meagre; that no sum has been awarded towards damages to the cycle and medical expenses; that the Tribunal did not consider the gravity of injuries while awarding compensation. Stating so, the learned counsel prayed for enhancement of compensation to Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶16

5.The learned counsel for the third respondent / Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation which is just and reasonable and hence the same does not require any interference in the hands of this Court.

¶17

6.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record carefully and meticulously.

¶18

7.The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.500/- each towards transport expenses and extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards permanent disability, totalling to Rs.16,000/- in all. After considering the materials and evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the Discharge Summary which has been marked as Ex.P1, which speaks for itself. As per the evidence of the Doctor-P.W.2, the claimant has sustained 25% disability. It would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards permanent disability, at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per percentage of disability. Considering the evidences adduced, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.6,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:

¶19

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

¶20

HEADS AMOUNT
(Rs.)
Permanent Disability 25,000/-
Pain and suffering 25,000/-
Loss of income during the 24,000/-
treatment period
Extra nourishment 10,000/-
Transport expenses 6,000/-
Medical expenses 10,000/-
----------------
TOTAL... 1,00,000/-
================
8.Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.16,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with
interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition. The third
respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the
date of petition, after deducting the amount if any already
deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant /
claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, on making proper
application before the Tribunal.

¶21

9.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No
costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

The III Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court), Chennai.

¶26

The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.

¶27

+1 cc to M/s.C.Munusamy, Advocate, S.R.No.46871
+1 cc to M/s.D.Bhaskaran, Advocate, S.R.No.47173
C.M.A.No.1485 of 2006
RK(CO)
SSM(22/10/2019).

¶28

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

R.Kalidoss v. T.Jawahar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kalidoss v. T.Jawahar

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

Tn State Transport Corpn. Vs Smt.Ponnukannu

Divisional Manager Vs Sivalingam

United India Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs Mani

United India Insurance Vs Rajammal

The Branch Manager, Vs Manivel

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,Chennai Vs P.Narayana Venkateswaran