Partly allowed

Janakiraman v. Kanagaraj

Madras HC27 Jun 2019CMA/2561/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the High Court allowed a minor enhancement of compensation awarded for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. While confirming most heads of claim, the court added Rs. 5,000 for attendant charges, raising the total to Rs. 5,78,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,73,000 to Rs. 5,78,000, with Rs. 5,000 added for attendant charges, payable with 7.5% annual interest.

Janakiraman Vs Kanagaraj — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.06.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. RAMATHILAGAM

¶5

C.M.A.No.2561 of 2019

Janakiraman

..Appellant

Vs.

1.Kanagaraj

The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. Shoba TSM Complex, Opp. Town Rly Station Road, Pallakkad Divisional Officer, Parimalam Complex, 11, EVN Road, 2nd Floor, Erode.

¶11

Selvakumar .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.177 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Erode.

¶13

For Appellant : M/s. T.S. Arthanareeswaran For R2 : Mr.J. Chandran

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 12.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.177 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Erode.

¶16

2.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.177 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Erode. He filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 13.02.2016. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg.No. TN36 AV 5994 and fixed the liability on the 2nd

¶17

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

¶18

respondent/Insurance Company and being the insurer of the offending vehicle, directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,73,000/- as compensation to the appellant. Not being satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶19

The compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads are as follows;

¶20

S.No	Description	Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs)
1.	Loss of Income	25,600
2.	Transport expenses	2,000
3.	Extra nourishment	6,000
4.	Damages for clothes and articles	500
5.	Medical expenses	1,66,300
6.	Pain and sufferings	50,000
7.	Disability and loss of earning power	3,22,600
8.	Attender Charges	--
	Total	5,73,000

¶21

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant argued that the appellant was working as a Operator in PVC Door Company and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He was hale and health and only due to the said accident the appellant sustained grevious injuries and multiple fractures (1) Right hand ulna fracture and radial head dislocation, (2) Left foot great toe fracture, (3) Left foot little toe fracture, (4) Head injury frontal bone frcture). He had taken treatment as inpatient from 13.02.2016 to 29.02.2016 (16days), during the treatment period he underwent surgery and plate and screws were fixed.

¶22

He has further stated that the tribunal without considering the above aspects, has awarded a very meagre amount under heads of future medial expenses, loss of amenities, extra nourishments and transport expenses to the hospital. He has further contended that the tribunal without considering the disability assessed by PW2-doctor at 46%, has fixed the disability at 10%. Aggrieved over the compensation awarded under various heads, he filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement.

¶23

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

¶24

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company has argued that there is contributory negligence of the petitioner in riding his motor cycle regn. no. TN-33-AR-1698 who suddenly crossed the road and hit against the TATA 407 TN36-AV-5994. The accident has occurred in the road when there is a collusion between two vehicles coming in the same direction, hence there is a presumption that the accident was due to the negligence of both the drivers and any one could have averted the accident by taking precautions and the compensation should be apportioned between them. The learned counsel further contended that the sum claimed by the petitioner under various heads are excessive and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company and perused all the materials available on record.

¶26

7.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the claimant was 36 years at the time of the accident. To substantiate the claim in respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant, Ex.P6-Accident Register, E.P7-Wound certificate and Ex.P8- Discharge summary were produced. It is seen from Ex.P8-Discharge summary, that the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant are grevious in nature and the evidcne of PW2-Doctor also reveals that the claimant had sustained 46% disability. The nature of injury has been very much discussed in EX.P8 -Discharge summary as follows;

¶27

"...On examination of he was conscious, oriented and afebrile with blood pressure of 90/60 mmHg, heart rate of 72/min, respiratory rate of 26/min and saturation of 98% with 6 liter of axygen/mash. Primary survey was unremarkable. Secondary survey revealed deceased air entry in right base, laceration over right forearm and contusion & abrasion over left foot. His CT brain revealed extra dural hemorrhage in right frontal region, thin sub-dural hemorrhage along the lateral convexity of the right fronto-parieto-temporal region, mil pnenmocephalus in bilateral frontal and right parietotemporal region, fracture of right rontal bone, orbit sphenoid (base of skull) and maxillary sinus. His CT chest showed no significant abnormally. His X-ray forearm showed fracture right ulna radial head dislocation for which he under went open reduction and internal fixation with locking plate and screws on 14.02.2016 under axillary block. The foot fractures were treated conservatively. Post-operative period uneventfully. He was treated with appropriate

¶28

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

¶29

medications and other supportive measures. He improved and discharged."

¶30

PW2 also deposed before the tribunal that for removing the plates and screws from body of the appellant/claimant requires Rs.20,000/-to Rs.25,000/- . It is also seen that the doctor who treated the appellant/claimant was examined as PW3, who explained the treatment underwent by the appellant and also identified the Ex.P9-bills issued by the Erode Emergency Care Hospital. The bills are stands in the name of the claimant and no suspicion arise in the genuineness of the bills, therefore the claimant was granted a sum of Rs.1,36,255 towards medical expenses as per Exhibits P9 & P11. The tribunal has also considered the future medial expenses and attender charges and awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. Totally the sum awarded by the tribunal at Rs.1,66,300/- under the head towards compensation for medical expenses, future medical expenses and attender charges are found proper and reasonable, hence does not require any intereference by this Court.

¶31

Likewise, the sum awarded under the head Disability and loss of earning power by taking 10% disability and Rs.12,800/as monthly income by considering the age and occupation of the claimant, eventhough no relevant documents were filed by the claimant, the sum granted by the tribunal at Rs.3,22,600/- under the said head is found proper and acceptable and the same does not require any modification. Similarly, the sum awarded under other heads viz., loss of income, Transport expenses, Extra nourishment, Damages to clothes and pain and sufferings are very much appropriate and does not require any modification.

¶32

Though it is the grievance of the the learned counsel for the appellant that no sum was granted under the heads loss of amenities and attender charges, this court is not inclined to award any amount for loss of amenities, since the tribunal has awarded reasonable amount in all heads. Considering the fact that appellant has taken treatment as inpatient from 13.02.2016 to 29.02.2016, this Court grants a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head Áttender Charges'.

¶33

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

¶34

S.No	Description	Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs)	Amount awarded by this Court (Rs)	Award confirmed or enhanced or granted
1.	Loss of Income	25,600	25,600	Confirmed
2.	Transport expenses	2,000	2,000	Confirmed
3.	Extra nourishment	6,000	6,000	Confirmed
4.	Damages for clothes and articles	500	500	Confirmed
5.	Medical expenses	1,66,300	1,66,300	Confirmed
6.	Pain and sufferings	50,000	50,000	Confirmed
7.	Disability and loss of earning power	3,22,600	3,22,600	Confirmed
8.	Attender Charges	--	5,000	granted
	Total	5,73,000	5,78,000

¶35

11. In the result,

¶36

(i)The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

(ii)The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.5,73,000/- to Rs.5,78,000/-, shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

¶38

(iii)The 2nd respondent / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire amount, awarded by this Court along with interest and costs before the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any. The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5% per annum is unaltered. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall

¶39

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

¶40

transfer the amount to the claimant's bank account through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereon.

¶41

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶42

//True Copy//

¶43

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶44

ak To

¶45

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Erode.

¶46

2 The Section Officer VR Section High Court, Madras

¶47

+1 cc to M/s.T.S.Arthanareeswaran Advocate sr53958

¶48

C.M.A.No.2561 of 2019

¶49

ad(co) aa06/09/2019

¶50

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

Janakiraman v. Kanagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janakiraman v. Kanagaraj

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 Divisional Manager Vs Mrs.Parameswari

R.Premkumar Vs the Managing Director

Arumugam Vs the Managing Director

Rukkammal Vs Rajeswari

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs S.Vijayakumar,S/O.Settu

Raja Vs Arulmurugan