S.Jayaraman Vs the United India Ins., Co., Ltd., Tiruppur Dist

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

C.M.A.No.1077 of 2016

¶6

S.Jayaraman (died)
2.J.Kaliyammal
3.J.Selvaraj
4.J.Tamilselvi
(Appellants 2 to 4 brought on
record as LRS of the deceased
sole Appellant vide order of
this Court dated 29.06.2021 made
in CMP.Nos.8579 to 8581 of 2021)

¶7

 ... Appellants / Petitioner

¶8

Vs

¶9

1.Saran Raj

¶10

2.M.Sathyaraj

¶11

3.The United India Insurance Company Limited, Post Box No.34.C.G.Complex,

¶12

 No.139-Kumaran Road,

¶13

 Tirupur – 641 601. ... Respondents / Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated
06.11.2015 in MCOP.No.1502 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tirupur.

¶15

For Appellants : Mr.K.Myilsamy

¶16

For respondents 3: Ms.I.Malar

¶17

R2 : Notice Served
R3 : Not Ready

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal was originally filed by the claimant/first
Appellant seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned
award dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur) in MCOP.No.1502 of
2013. During the pendency of this appeal, the Appellant/claimant
died and his legal representatives were brought on record as
Appellants 2 to 4 by this Court.

¶21

2. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the
third respondent Insurance Company to pay the first
Appellant/claimant a compensation of Rs.1,76,030/- for the
injuries sustained by him on 15.09.2013 as a result of an
accident caused by a vehicle owned by the second respondent and
insured with the third respondent. The details of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal are as follows:

¶22

`Heads`	`Award Amount`
	`(Rs.)`
`Medical expenses`	`32,030/-`
`Transportation,` `Extra`	`15,000/-`
`nourishment & attender`
`charges`
`Loss of income`	`24,000/-`
`Disability`	`90,000/-` `(45 x 2000)`
`Pain and suffering & loss`	`15,000/-`
`of amenities`
`Total`	`1,76,030/-`

¶23

3. The deceased claimant S.Jayaraman sustained head
injury, fracture in neck and femur, fracture in calcaneum,
fracture at left hip and multiple grievous injuries all over the
body as a result of the aforementioned accident. The nature of
injuries sustained by the claimant has not been disputed by the
respondents before the Tribunal. The Doctor has assessed the
disability of the claimant at 45% and the Tribunal has also
accepted the said assessment made by the Doctor. However, the
Tribunal has awarded the disability compensation of Rs.90,000/-
calculated at Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability for the 45%

¶24

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

¶25

disability. This Court is of the considered view that if the
Tribunal had taken into consideration the year of the accident
which happened in the year 2013, it ought to have fixed the
disability compensation at a higher sum calculated at Rs.3,000/-
per percentage of disability instead of Rs.2,000/- per percentage
of disability. Therefore, this court enhances the disability
compensation for the claimant to Rs.1,35,000/- calculated at
Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability for the 45% disability
suffered by the claimant instead of Rs.90,000/- erroneously fixed
by the Tribunal.

¶26

4. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/-
towards transportation, extra nourishment and attender charges
which in the considered view of this Court is not a correct
assessment as the injuries sustained by the claimant is grievous
in nature and hence, this court confirms the said compensation of
Rs.15,000/- only in respect of transportation and extra
nourishment and separately awards a compensation of Rs.10,000/-
towards attender charges.

¶27

5. In the claim petition, the claimant had claimed that
he was a welder, aged 48 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month
at the time of the accident. However, the Tribunal has fixed the
notional monthly income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/-. This Court
after giving due consideration to the avocation of the claimant
as well as the year of the accident which happened in the year
2013, is of the considered view that the notional monthly income
of the claimant fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- is low and it
has to be enhanced to Rs.9,000/-. Accordingly, this court
enhances the notional monthly income of the claimant to
Rs.9,000/-. However, the assessment of loss of income for the
period of four months by the Tribunal is a correct assessment.
Since the notional monthly income of the claimant is enhanced to
Rs.9,000/-, the loss of income to the claimant is enhanced to
Rs.36,000/- calculated at Rs.9,000/- per month for a period of
four months instead of Rs.24,000/- calculated at Rs.6,000/- per
month for a period of four months erroneously fixed by the
Tribunal.

¶28

6. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain
and suffering and loss of amenities which in the considered view
of this court is low and it has to be enhanced. After giving due
consideration to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant

¶29

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

¶30

as well as the period of hospitalisation which was for seven
days, this Court enhances the compensation towards pain and
suffering and loss of amenities to Rs.20,000/- instead of
Rs.15,000/- erroneously assessed by the Tribunal.

¶31

7. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.32,030/-
towards medical expenses which is supported by the medical bills
produced by the claimant and marked as Ex.A4 before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the same is confirmed by this court.

¶32

8. The Tribunal has granted pay and recovery rights to
the third respondent Insurance company as the driver of the
insured vehicle did not possess a driving licence and the insured
vehicle did not have effective insurance policy at the time of
the accident. This Court does not find any infirmity in the
findings given by the Tribunal and confirms the pay and recovery
rights granted to the third respondent Insurance company.

¶33

9. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,48,030/- from Rs.1,76,030/- in
the following manner:

¶34

`Heads`	`Amount awarded by` `the Tribunal` `(Rs.)`	`Amount awarded by` `this Court` `(Rs.)`
`Medical expenses`	`32,030/-`	`32,030/-`
`Transportation,`		`15,000/-`
`Extra nourishment`	`15,000/-`	`10,000/-`
`Attender charges`
`Loss of income`	`24,000/-`	`36,000/-`
`Disability`	`90,000/-` `(45 x 2000)`	`1,35,000/-` `(45 x 3000)`
`Pain` `and`	`15,000/-`	`20,000/-`
`suffering & loss`
`of amenities`
`Total`	`1,76,030/-`	`2,48,030/-`

¶35

10. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is
partly allowed by enhancing the award amount from Rs.1,76,030/-
to Rs.2,48,030/-. The third respondent Insurance Company is

¶36

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

¶37

directed to deposit the amount awarded by this Court, after
deducting the amount already deposited if any, together with
interest from the date of claim till the date of deposit to the
credit of MCOP.No1502 of 2013 and costs within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle/second respondent.
On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall transfer the
respective share of award amount lying to the credit of
MCOP.No.1502 of 2013 to the bank account of the Appellants 2 to 4
through RTGS within a period of one week thereafter. No costs.

¶38

 Sd/-

¶39

 Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶40

//True Copy//

¶41

 Sub Assistant Registrar

¶42

nl

¶43

To

¶44

1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tirupur

¶45

2.The Section Officer,

¶46

V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.

¶47

+1cc to M/s.T.Ravichandran, Advocate, S.R.No.51102

¶48

 C.M.A.No.1077 of 2016

¶49

SR-II(CO)
SB(29/10/2021)

¶50

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

S.Jayaraman v. the United India Ins., Co., Ltd., Tiruppur Dist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jayaraman v. the United India Ins., Co., Ltd., Tiruppur Dist

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

Kuzhanthaivelu (Declared Major Vs Ahmed Akber Ali

A.Anthonysamy Vs Sandeedp Nanduri

The Managing Director, Tnstc., Kumbakonam Vs Dhayalan

Managing Director Vs K.M. R. Eswaran

The Managing Director Vs Minor Anuvarshini

Muruganantham Vs Priya