Allowed

Anand @ Palani Raja v. Sureshkumar

Madras HC26 Sept 2022CMA/2707/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a road accident, increasing it from Rs.51,750 to Rs.56,250, and directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.51,750 to Rs.56,250; respondent directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

Anand @ Palani Raja Vs Sureshkumar — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.M.A.No.2707 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

C.M.A.No.2707 of 2013

Anand @ Palani Raja

... Appellant

vs.

1.Suresh Kumar

2.The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nagapattinam.

¶12

3.Gopinath

¶13

4.The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nagapattinam.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Award passed in M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2008 dated 14.10.2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvarur.

¶16

For Appellant : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.S.Arunkumar[R2] Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy[R4] R1 & R3 – Served – No Appearance

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/7

¶19

C.M.A.No.2707 of 2013

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The claimants are the appellants before this Court seeking enhancement of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

¶22

Sub-Court, Thiruvarur in M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2008 dated 14.10.2008.

¶23

2.The parties are referred to in the same rank as before the Tribunal.

¶24

The brief facts are narrated below:

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that he had sustained injuries in a road accident on 10.07.2007. On the said date, the petitioner was driving his tractor bearing Reg.No.TN-50-C-9939 and proceeding on the south to north and when he turned to the west, the 1^st respondent's vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's tractor, as a result of which he had sustained injuries. The petitioner has impleaded the owner of the tanker and its insurer and the tractor and its insurer as respondents 1 to 4.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

¶27

counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

¶28

2/7

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

C.M.A.No.2707 of 2013

¶31

The petitioner had claimed a compensation of a sum of Rs.3,72,500/-. It is his contention that he is the driver of the tractor, earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. The 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company which is the insurer of the tanker lorry has filed a counter denying the allegations of the petitioner and also denying the age, income and nature of injuries sustained by him.

¶32

The Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only on account of the negligence of the driver of the tanker lorry and therefore, proceeded to award a compensation of Rs.51,750/- (75% of Rs.69,000/-).

¶33

The petitioner/claimant is aggrieved by the fact that a very low

¶34

compensation has been granted and therefore, filed the present appeal before this Court.

¶35

The learned counsel for the appellant was not present before this Court on 14.07.2020, 04.08.2020, 08.09.2020 and 16.09.2022. The appellant despite being directed to furnish copies to the respondent has

¶36

3/7

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

C.M.A.No.2707 of 2013

¶39

failed to do so.

¶40

Today, when the matter was called thrice, the the counsel for the appellant has not appeared. The appeal is of the year 2013, therefore, this Court proceeded to hear the respondents and perused the materials on record and passed the order.

¶41

The award is challenged only on the ground that the compensation awarded is low. The petitioner has been an in-patient in the hospital from 10.07.2007 to 06.08.2007, which is evidenced by Ex.B9 and the disability is assessed as 28%. The Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- under the head of partial permanent disability. The petitioner has suffered a fracture in the right radial and avena bone and he recovered from the same. Therefore, the award of Rs.45,000/- towards disability requires no reconsideration. Likewise, a sum of Rs.12,000/- granted towards loss of income for the period of three months, appears to be reasonable and does not require any reconsideration. The award under the head of Extra Nourishment is enhanced to a sum of Rs.5,000/- from Rs.1,000/- and likewise amount granted under the head of Transportation is

¶42

4/7

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

C.M.A.No.2707 of 2013

¶45

enhanced to a sum of Rs.3,000/- from Rs.1,000/-. In all other aspects, the

¶46

award of the Tribunal remains unaltered. Therefore, the Compensation

¶47

awarded by the Tribunal is reworked as below:

¶48

*S.No.*	*Description*	*Amount* *awarded by* *Tribunal*	A aw th	*mount* *arded by* *is Court*	*Award* *confirmed* or *enhanced* *or granted* *or reduced*
1	Permanent Disability	Rs. 45,000/-	Rs.	45,000/-	Confirmed
2	Loss of Income	Rs. 12,000/-	Rs.	12,000/-	Confirmed
3	Extra Nourishment	Rs. 1,000/-	Rs.	5,000/-	Enhanced
4	Transportation	Rs. 1,000/-	Rs.	3,000/-	Enhanced
5	Pain and Sufferings	Rs. 10,000/-	Rs.	10,000/-	Confirmed
	TOTAL	Rs. 69,000/-	Rs.	75,000/-
		75% of Rs.69,000/- = Rs.51,750/-	75% Rs.7 =Rs	of 5,000/- .56,250/-

¶49

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the

¶50

compensation of Rs.51750/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby Enhanced to

¶51

a sum of Rs.56,250/-. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent / Insurance Company is

¶52

directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.56,250/- to the credit of

¶53

5/7

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

C.M.A.No.2707 of 2013

¶56

M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvarur, together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount now determined by this Court, as apportioned by the Tribunal, along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. It is made clear that there is no interest for the default period. No costs.

¶57

26.09.2022

¶58

Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order ssn

¶59

To:

¶60

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvarur.

¶61

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶62

6/7

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

C.M.A.No.2707 of 2013

¶65

P.T.ASHA, J.,

¶66

ssn

¶67

C.M.A. No.2707 of 2013

¶68

26.09.2022

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

7/7

Anand @ Palani Raja v. Sureshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand @ Palani Raja v. Sureshkumar

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

Marimuthu Vs Karthikeyan

Arulmigu Sri Pudhiya Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil Vs Thiru Kandhasamy Mudaliar Memorial Trust

The Managing Director Vs G.Pandaram (Died)

Sivakumar Vs Ramasamy

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs M.Muthu

Lakshmi Ammal Vs Nalina Ammal