Allowed

Rathana v. Jayakumar

Madras HC3 Dec 2020CMA/1520/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 sought to enhance compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a motor accident injury. The High Court found the Tribunal's assessment of disability and other heads insufficient and enhanced the total award from Rs. 86,000 to Rs. 2,00,000.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced from Rs. 86,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Rathana Vs Jayakumar — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.12.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.1520 of 2020

¶6

Rathana

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Vs.
1. Jayakumar
(R1 remained Exparte be for the Tribunal)
2. National Insurance Company Limited,
No.46, Moore Street,
T.P. Hub,
Chennai 600 001 ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the
award dated 31.10.2019 and made in MCOP No.1872 of 2018 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub
Court-2, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr. F.Terry Chella Raja For Respondent : Mrs. R. Shreevidhya, for R2 J U D G M E N T

¶10

The claimant is before this Court with this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶11

The case of the claimant in brief is as follows:

¶12

On 22.02.2018, at about 3.00 p.m., while the injured/claimant, was standing in front of Annai Hospital at Natesan Road, Virukambakkam, a car bearing Registration NO.TN 22 CL 3900, owned by the first respondent, which was insured with the second respondent Insurance Company came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, in which, he sustained serious injuries, distal tibia in right leg was fractured, and he was admitted in the hospital and undergone surgery and suffered 30%

¶13

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

¶14

disability. Hence, claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs claim petition has been filed.

¶15

The owner of the vehicle remained exparte and the Insurance Company contested the claim petition on the ground that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the injured and there is no details regarding the nature of the accident. Insurance Company also denied that the first respondent vehicle is involved in the accident and also disputed the monthly income of the injured person.

¶16

Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined herself as PW1 and the Doctor was examined as PW2 and as many as 16 exhibits have been marked. On the side of respondents, neither any witness nor any document has been marked.

¶17

The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, held that the accident has taken place due to the negligent driving of the car belonging to the first respondent and so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, even though the medical certificate was produced as Ex.P.16 stating that he suffered 30% disability, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 10% and granted Rs.30,000/- towards the disability, granting Rs.3000/- per percentage. In respect of other heads , the Tribunal granted compensation as follows:

¶18

Sl. Headings Amount Awarded
by the
No.
Tribunal
Rs.
1 Permanent 30,000
disability
2 Pain and sufferings 10,000
3 Transportation 3,000
expenses
4 Extra Nourishment 10,000
5 Clothes and damages 1,000
6 Attendant charges 5,000
7 Loss of Income 27,000
Total 86,000

¶19

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

¶20

Feeling aggrieved over the same, the claimant is before this Court, with this appeal.

¶21

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records carefully.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in the instant case, the appellant suffered fracture in the distal tibia and he is having difficulty in climbing stairs and standing and squatting on the floor and he has also examined the Doctor to that effect. However, the Tribunal fixed his disability only at 10% without any reason. From the perusal of the record, it could be seen that after the accident, the claimant was admitted in the hospital as in-patient from 28.02.2018 to 10.03.2018 and she has also undergone surgery for the fracture she suffered. P.W.2 , the Doctor has issued a disability certificate, which is marked as Ex.P.16, in which it is stated as follows :

¶23

"Injuries - fracture of distal tibia right leg and observation regarding the injuries - she has difficulty in climbing stairs, standing on affected leg, squatting on floor, sitting cross legged, limping walking"

¶24

The doctor was examined as P.W.2 . However, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 10% without any reason whatsoever, fixing Rs.3000/- per percentage. According to the claimant, at the time of the accident, she was 19 years old and she has completed her school education and she was a tailor and she suffered a fracture in the leg and she could not continue her avocation as before. From the disability certificate issued by the Doctor, it could seen that due to the accident, she is having difficulty in climbing stair and she is not able to stand on the affected leg and considering the above fact that the injury suffered by her affected her future earning, however, the Tribunal fixed the disability only at 10% without any reason whatsoever. This Court accepting the disability certificate issued by the P.W.2 Doctor, fixed the disability as 30% partial permanent disability. Considering the fact that the accident has taken place in the year 2018, and other circumstances, a sum of Rs.4,000/- is ordered per percentage. Hence, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards the disability.

¶25

The claimant was admitted in the hospital for nearly two weeks and undergone surgery. Hence, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is ordered towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards Transport expenses and Rs.7,000/-

¶26

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

¶27

towards attender charges and Rs.2,000/- towards damages to the clothes. The claimant is bed ridden for more than 6 months and hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of income instead of Rs.27,000/- granted by the Tribunal and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment is awarded and totally a sum of Rs.2,00,000/is awarded towards compensation instead of Rs.86,000/awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Considering all the above circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal modified as follows:-

¶28

Sl. Headings Amount Amount Award
Awarded awarded confirme
No.
by the by this d or
Tribunal Court enhanced
Rs.
1 Permanent 30,0 1,21,000 enhanced
disability 00
2 Pain and 10,0 25,00 enhance
sufferings 00 0 d
3 Transportation 3, 5,0 enhance
expenses 000 00 d
4 Extra Nourishment 10, 10,00 confirme
000 0 d
5 Damages to clothes 1 2,0 enhanced
,000 00
6 Attendant charges 5 7,0 enhanced
,000 00
7 Loss of Income 27, 30,00 enhanced
000 0
Total 86, 2,00,000 enhanced
000

¶29

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.86,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant is directed to pay necessary Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. The second respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶30

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

¶31

judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced award amount along with interest and costs as apportioned by the Tribunal. No costs.

¶32

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mrp
To:
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court-2,
Court of Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Ms.M.Malar, Advocate SR.No.38970
+1cc to Mr.R.Ravichandran, Advocate SR.No.39294
C.M.A.No.1520 of 2020
SR(CO)
GMY(04/05/2021)

¶33

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

Rathana v. Jayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathana v. Jayakumar

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

Chrysolete Vs P.Karthikeyan

A.Sankar Vs the Managing Director

Venda Vs Rajaraman

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs M.Ramesh

The Divisional Manager Vs B.Sohan Bai

Jothi Vs the Managing Director