Dismissed

Perumal Alias Pandiyan v. Padmavathi

Madras HC21 Jun 2019CMA/2515/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs.1,16,470 in a motor accident claim involving rash and negligent driving. The court upheld the Quantum Award, finding the disability percentage and heads of damage reasonably assessed by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal award of Rs.1,16,470 along with interest at 7.5% p.a. permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner upon payment by the Insurance Company.

Perumal Alias Pandiyan Vs Padmavathi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.06.2019 CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM

¶5

C.M.A.No.2515 of 2019

¶6

Perumal @ Pandiyan

¶7

.. Appellant/Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Padmavathi

¶10

2.United India Insurance Company., Ltd., No.146-N, Kumar Complex, Annasalai, Tiruchengode, Namakkal. .. Respondents/Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge Court, Tiruchengode.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.J.Chandran for R2

¶14

R1 – Exparte before Tribunal JUDGMENT

¶15

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award dated 14.06.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge Court, Tiruchengode.

¶16

2.The appellant is the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge Court, Tiruchengode. The appellant has filed the claim petition for claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 26.03.2013.

¶17

3.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver/first respondent of the lorry, the second respondent/Insurance company being the insurer of the first respondent's vehicle, directed the first and

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

second Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,16,470/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Only) as compensation to the appellant/claimant. Aggrieved against the said award dated 14.06.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2013, the appellant has come out with the present appeal for enhancement.

¶21

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in awarding amount as compensation not in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case and principles for awards in similar cases. The medical board examined the petitioner and mechancially given the disability certificate only 5% which is very meagre. The petitioner got permanent disability and the Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount under the heads of pain and suffering and extra nourishment and has not awarded any amount under the various heads of attender charges, transport expenses to the hospital and loss of amenities.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

From the materials on record it is seen that the petitioner has produced disability certificate marked as Ex.P8 show 5% disability only. Hence, considering the age of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per pecentage is proper. The medical bill is produced by the petitioner as Ex.P5 reveals the expenses incurred by the petitioner of Rs.46,470/- which is not specifically objected by the respondent and the same is correlated with the doctor's evidence and the contemporary period of treatment, hence the same is confirmed. Considering the period of treatment undergone as inpatient and the surgery underwent by the petitioner, and also the fracture injuried a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded as compensation under the head of pain and suffering and mental agony which is proper and reasonable. It is seen that no bills were produced by the petitioner towards transport expenses and hence no amount was granted as compensation under the said head and the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of extra nourishment and the same is also confirmed. Considering the treatment period and fracture it can be presumed that the petitioner could have been prevented from job for a period of two months, hence a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded as loss of income is very much proper and the same also confirmed. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads as compensation to the appellant are reasonable. I do not find any error in the reasoning and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

7.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the sum of Rs.1,16,470/- awarded as compensation by the Tribunal to the appellant herein, along with interest and costs is hereby confirmed.

¶27

The first and second respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.1,16,470/- (if not already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2013, dated 14.06.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Tiruchengode within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar /True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶30

The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruchengode.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.C.Paraneedharan, Advocate SR.No.51844 +1cc to Mr.J.Chandran, Advocate Sr.No.51257

¶32

AKM/02.03.2020 /3P-4C/

¶33

C.M.A.No.2515 of 2019

¶34

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

Perumal Alias Pandiyan v. Padmavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perumal Alias Pandiyan v. Padmavathi

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

S. Murugan @ Thangaiah Vs Tarapore and Company

Krishnaveni Vs Thirupathi

Chidhambaram Vs Mani

Ilavar Velmurugan Vs Sri Renukambaal Matriculation

Krishnamoorthy Vs Latha

United India Insurance Com Vs S.Ezhil