Partly allowed

E.Vasudevan (Minor) v. R.Kamaraj

Madras HC23 Feb 2021CMA/969/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.1,13,000 to Rs.1,68,000 by increasing disability percentage to 30% and rate to Rs.3,000, modifying the headache amount, and confirming other heads.

What did the court decide?

The total compensation enhanced to Rs.1,68,000 along with interest. The Insurance Company directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.

E.Vasudevan (Minor) Vs R.Kamaraj — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.02.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

C.M.A.No.969 of 2014

¶6

E.Vasudevan (Minor)

¶7

S/o.Elumalai

¶8

..Appellant / Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.R.Kamaraj

¶11

[was set exparte in the trial Court]

¶12

2.ICICI Lombard Gl.Insurance Co.Ltd.,
 Arihant Plaza, No.84/85, Walltax Road,
 Chennai – 600 003

¶13

 ..Respondents / Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated
20.09.2013 made in MACT.O.P.No.2091 of 2011 on the file of the
Special Sub Judge-I, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Court of
Small Causes), Chennai.

¶15

For Appellant: Mr.P.T.Salim Fathima
For Respondents: Ms.R.Sreevidhya [for R2]
 R1 – Notice served

¶16

The Appellant/claimant has filed this appeal against the
judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013 made in MACT.O.P.No.2091 of
2011 on the file of the Special Sub Judge-I, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, (Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

¶17

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

¶18

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the first respondent was set ex-parte.

¶19

3. The case of the appellant/claimant is as follows:
On 01.06.2011 at about 15.00 hours, the minor petitioner
was riding the cycle from North to South direction in Tirvuallur
Salai and while he was about to join K.B.Dasan Salai, a Motor
Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-07-R-8317 came from West to
East direction in K.B.Dasan Salai in a very high speed, rash and
negligent manner endangering to the public safety, came to the
extreme Northern side of the road and dashed against the
petitioner, due to which he sustained multiple compound and
commuted fracture and degloving injury in both bones in right
leg below knee. Severe injury in the skull and chest. Multiple
internal and external injuries all over the body. Immediately,
the appellant/claimant was admitted at C.M.O., Government
Royappettah Hospital, Chennai, and for further treatment at
St.IsabellaHospital,Mylapore,Chennai.Sincethe

¶20

appellant/claimant is a 14 year old boy, the appellant/claimant
filed a claim petition seeking compensation in a sum of
Rs.9,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

¶21

4. Resisting the claim made by the appellant/claimant,
the 2nd respondent Insurance company has filed a detailed counter
statement inter alia stating that the accident did not occur in
the manner as projected by the first respondent/claimant. Thus,
they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶22

5. Before the Tribunal, to prove his case, the father of
the injured was examined as P.W.1 and one Mr.Dr.Amarnath
R.Sowlee was examined as P.W.2 and 7 documents were marked as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P7. On the side of the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company, none were examined and no exhibits were marked.

¶23

6. On appreciation of materials, the Tribunal arrived at
a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-
07-R-8317 and held that the 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company, as
insurer of the said vehicle, is liable to pay compensation.
Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,13,000/- as
compensation. The break-up details are as follows:

¶24

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

¶25

`Sl.`	`Compensation awarded under the`	`Amount`
`No.`	`head`	`(in Rs.)`
`1.`	`Permanent disability`	`50,000/-`
	`25% x Rs.2,000/-`
`2.`	`Transportation`	`5,000/-`
`3.`	`Extra Nourishment`	`5,000/-`
`4.`	`Medical Treatment`	`38,000/-`
`5.`	`Pain and Sufferings`	`15,000/-`
	`Total`	`1,13,000/-`

¶26

The said sum was directed to be paid together with interest at
7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of
realization. Unsatisfied with the said award, the
appellant/claimant preferred the appeal before the said Court.

¶27

7. According to the appellant, oral and documentary
evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to prove that the
appellant/claimant has sustained 30% of the disability in the
accident.

¶28

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant
and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

¶29

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended
that P.W.2 – Doctor was examined on the side of the
appellant/claimant and he deposed that the appellant/claimant
has sustained 30% the disability in the said accident. The
Tribunal assessed 25% disability without any reason. Therefore,
the said finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel further submits that the amount awarded under
the other heads is on the lower side.

¶30

10. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
the award of the Tribunal is fair and just and does not require
any interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company has objected for awarding
enhancement of compensation.

¶31

11. On perusal of evidence of P.W.2, Doctor, who was
examined on the side of the appellant, it is seen that he has
assessed 30% disability. The Tribunal has assessed 25% without

¶32

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

¶33

any reason and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
appellant/claimant has suffered 30% partial disability in the
said accident. Considering the fact that P.W.2 was examined and
deposed that the appellant/claimant suffered 30% disability and
taking note of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of
India, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded
under the head 'disability' requires enhancement.

¶34

12. This Court is of the view that the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. Considering the
age of the appellant/claimant i.e., 14 at the time of the
accident, it is appropriate to fix Rs.3,000/- per percentage of
disability. Therefore, compensation payable under the head
'disability' would be,

¶35

30% x Rs.3000 = Rs.90,000/-.

¶36

The amount awarded under the other heads is hereby confirmed.

¶37

13. Accordingly, the modified compensation payable

¶38

would be:

¶39

`Sl.`	`Compensation awarded`	`under the`	`Amount`
`No.`	`head`		`(in Rs.)`
`1.`	`30% of Disability`		`90,000.00`
`2.`	`Transport`		`5,000.00`
`3.`	`Extra Nourishment`		`5,000.00`
`4.`	`Pain and Sufferings`		`20,000.00`
`5.`	`Attender Charges`		`5,000.00`
`6.`	`Loss of Amenities`		`5,000.00`
`7.`	`Medical Expenses`		`38,000.00`
		`Total`	`1,68,000.00`

¶40

14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed, the total compensation of Rs.1,13,00/- awarded
by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,68,000/- along with interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

¶41

15. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit
the modified compensation amount, as awarded by this Court along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit, less the amount already

¶42

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

¶43

deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The modified award amount of
the appellant/claimant shall be deposited in a nationalized bank
till the minor attains the majority and the father of the minor
petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest once in three
months directly from the bank. The appellant/claimant shall pay
necessary court fee before receiving the copy of this judgment
for the enhanced compensation amount. No costs.

¶44

 Sd/-
 Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶45

//True Copy//

¶46

 Sub Assistant Registrar

¶47

bri

¶48

To

¶49

 The Special Sub Judge-I,
 The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
 Court of Small Causes,
 Chennai.

¶50

Copy To:

¶51

 The Section Officer,
 V.R.Section, High Court,
 Madras.

¶52

+1cc to M/s.M.Swamikkannu, Advocate, S.R.No.10948
+1cc to Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, Advocate, S.R.No.11643

¶53

C.M.A.No.969 of 2014

¶54

KK(CO)
SB(28/09/2021)

¶55

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

E.Vasudevan (Minor) v. R.Kamaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Vasudevan (Minor) v. R.Kamaraj

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

United India Insurance Co. Vs Rathinasamy

V.B.Mark Jayaseelan Paul Vs J.Radhakrishnan

The G.M.,United India Ins., Co., Ltd. Vs Mumtaj Begam

The United India Insurance Co. Vs Manikavasagar

The Managing Director Vs Tmt. Kalpana

Chinnappa Chetty Vs Raghupathy Gowda