Partly allowed

Govindan v. M/S.Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational Trust

Madras HC15 Apr 2021CMA/3586/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the High Court enhanced motor accident compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court observed that despite amputation, the functional disability was not fully captured. Considering the appellant's age (54) and potential loss of future earnings post-retirement, an additional Rs.10 lakhs was awarded for loss of amenities and loss of quality of life, increasing the total to Rs.21,44

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.10,00,000/- from Rs.11,44,541/- to Rs.21,44,541/-.

Govindan Vs M/S.Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational Trust — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.3586 of 2019

¶6

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶7

Govindan

¶8

...Appellant/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s.Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational Trust, Rep by its Authorised Signatory No.23 and 24, Mariamman Koil Street,

¶11

Madagadipet, Puducherry.

¶12

The Divisional Manager,

¶13

TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited,

¶14

No.10-A, Duraisamy Pillai Street,

¶15

West Tambaram,

¶16

Chennai. ...Respondents/Respondents

¶17

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2018 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1129 of 2016, on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.D.Senthil Kumar For R1 : No Appearance For R2 : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The Claimant is the appellant in this appeal.He is aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in its judgment and decree dated 03.11.2018 in MACTOP.No.1129 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Puducherry. In this appeal, the appellant seeks to claim enhancement of compensation.

¶21

By the impugned judgment and decree, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,44,541/- under the following heads.

¶22

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

¶23

Permanent disability	Rs.1,80,000/-
Pain and Sufferings	Rs.2,00,000/-
Medical Expenses	Rs.6,81,445/-
Loss of Income	-----
Rich and Nutritious Food	Rs.25,000/-
Attender Charges	Rs.20,000/-
Transport Expenses	Rs.38,096/-
Total	Rs.11,44,541/-

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was an employee in Puducherry Tourism Development Corporation. The appellant was not entitled to any pension on his retirement and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the above while awarding compensation to the appellant. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has taken the same for awarding compensation though as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have award amounts towards loss of amenities, loss of cloth and towards loss of expectations of life on account of the injuries suffered by the claimant.

¶25

Defending the impugned judgment and decree, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/Insurance company submits that the impugned judgement and decree is well reasoned and requires no interference. He further submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 is not applicable to the facts of the case in as much as no functional disability has arisen on account of injury. It is submitted that the petitioner was a white collar employee and was working as an Assistant Manager with Puducherry Tournism Development Corporation. It is further submitted that the appellant suffered injury in left leg due to the accident that there is no functional disability or loss of income for the Tribunal to award compensation by applying multiplier.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

Though the injury sustained by the appellant is grievous in nature and as a result while there is the amputation of left leg as stated in the impugned order, I am of the view, that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of amenities and towards compromise in the quality of life.

¶28

Considering the above facts that the appellant aged about

¶29

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

¶30

54 years at the time of accident and may not have any scope of undertaking any post retiral job after retirement from the Puducherry Tourism Development Corporation, I am inclined to enhance a compensation of Rs.11,44,541/- awarded by the Tribunal by another sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards loss of amenities and towards compromise in quality of life of the appellant. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards other expenses appears reasonable and are therefore confirmed. Thus, the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.21,44,541/- from Rs.11,44,541/-.

¶31

Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.21,44,541/- (Rs.11,44,541 + Rs.10,00,000/-) together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the claim petition till the date of payment to the credit of MACTOP.No.1129 of 2016 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Puducherry, less any amount already deposited within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same together with interest accrued thereon, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by filing suitable application before the Tribunal.

¶32

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

¶33

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶34

//True Copy//

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

drl

¶37

To:

¶38

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Puducherry.

¶39

The Section Officer, VR Section,High Court, Madras.

¶40

+1cc to Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam, Advocate, S.R.No.22983

¶41

+1cc to Mr.D.Senthil Kumaar, Advocate, S.R.No.23190

¶42

C.M.A.No.3586 of 2019

¶43

PP(CO)

¶44

RGA(30/09/2021)

¶45

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

Govindan v. M/S.Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindan v. M/S.Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Infra Engineers India, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Subramani Vs Murugesan

N.Indhumathy Vs G.Arunagiri

Periyasamy Vs Ponnivalavan

The Managing Director Vs Asokan

P.Selvam Vs N.Kasirajan