The High Court held the Tribunal's 50% negligence finding excessive and substituted it with 25%. Consequently, the Court enhanced the compensation award from Rs.98,000 to Rs.2,51,437.5 along with interest.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,51,437.5; insured to deposit amount with interest within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A No.1345 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.12.2023
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.M.A.No.1345 of 2022
Ambedkar ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Balasubramanian
2.The Divisional Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 100 feet road, Solan Nagar, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry -605 004.
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Acct, 1988, seeking to set aside the award dated 27.04.2021 in MACTOP.No.255 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Puducherry-cum- the Court of Special Officer-cum-Additional Sub-Judge, Puducherry and consequently, enhance the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant.
1/8
C.M.A No.1345 of 2022
| For Appellants |
: Ms.G.Lavanya for Mr.T.Saikrishnan |
|---|---|
| For Respondents | : Mr.K.Poomalai for R2 |
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the victim of a road accident that took place on
30.09.2018 when his motorcycle is said to have been knocked from behind by a car bearing No.PY 01 U 3034 driven in a rash and negligent manner by R.W.3, its driver at the relevant time. In the accident, the appellant herein is stated to have suffered fracture to both his hands. Seeking compensation, he approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry cum the Court of Special Officer Cum Additional Sub-Judge, Puducherry with MCOP.No.255 of 2019. The Tribunal had found the appellant 50% negligent, and accordingly, it passed its award. In assessing the compensation, it relied on Ex.C1, the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board which evaluated the disability of the appellant as permanent disability at 39%, then it proceeded to award Rs.5,000/- for every percentage of disability, and after providing for other conventional heads, it awarded the total sum of Rs.1,96,000/- and the breakup is as below:
2/8
C.M.A No.1345 of 2022
Sl.
| Sl. No. |
Description | Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Permanent disability (14 x Rs.5,000/-) |
70,000 |
| 2. | Pain and sufferings | 40,000 |
| 3. | Loss of income (4 x 9,000) | 36,000 |
| 4. | Transport | 10,000 |
| 5. | Nutritious food | 10,000 |
| 6. | Medical expenses | 10,000 |
| 7. | Attender charges | 10,000 |
| 8. | Comfort and amenities | 10,000 |
| Total | Rs.1,96,000/- after 50% deduction =Rs.98,000/- |
2.Since the appellant preferred this appeal challenging the quantum
awarded by the Tribunal, this Court considers that notice to the first respondent is not necessary.
3.Aggrieved by the perceived inadequacy of the compensation awarded,
the claimant is now before this Court with this appeal.
4.Heard Ms.G.Lavanya, learned counsel for the appellant, and
Mr.K.Poomalai, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3/8
C.M.A No.1345 of 2022
5.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had relied on the testimony of R.W.3 to fasten 50% negligence on the victim of the motorcycle and in the process, it has overlooked other associated evidence. He also added that the notional income has been unrealistically fixed by the Tribunal.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent / the insurance company submitted that while the claimant / appellant contended that the accident had taken place when the cab driven by the R.W.3 has knocked it from behind, the real story is otherwise - it is the motorcycle that hit the cab from behind. The learned counsel added that the Tribunal, therefore, proceeded to rely on Ex.P.6, inspection report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, to arrive at a conclusion that the case put forward by R.W.3 is the most probable version of the accident.
7.The case has two parts: Who is negligent, or to be precise, which version, as put forward by the claimant and R.W.3 is most probable. Since the Tribunal has relied on Ex.P.6, Accident Inspection Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector to navigate through the conflicting versions of the accident, this Court chooses to commence its discussion from Ex.P6. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8
C.M.A No.1345 of 2022
A perusal of Ex.P6 shows that there is a wholesome damage to the bike from the headlight to the footrest on both sides and also to the rear brake pedal. However, the same Motor Vehicle Inspector does not chose to inspect the cab for the damage that it has suffered. In other words, this Court is interested to know whether the car has suffered damage to its front or the back. This is not available.
8.The next point is whether, in the absence of any material about the nature of damage which the offending vehicle has suffered, how to recreate the accident. Here, the appellant's theory is that because the motorcycle was hit from behind, the motorcycle suffered damage to its front portion. This appears slightly far-fetched given the nature of damage, which is wholly to the front portion of the bike and not much to its back. This Court may not be able to appreciate the case of the appellant totally. The truth very obviously lies in between. The Tribunal found that this meant mudstrick right at the middle by attributing 50% negligence to the appellant, whereas this Court considers that 25% would be an ideal percentage. The compensation awarded under the head 'permanent disability' is now increased from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.1,46,250/-. On other conventional heads of compensation, this Court chooses to 5/8
C.M.A No.1345 of 2022
interfere suitably and the details are as below:
| Sl. No |
Description | Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) |
Amount awarded by this Court (in Rs.) |
Award confirmed or enhanced or granted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Permanent disability |
70,000 (14 x Rs.5,000/-) |
1,46,250 | enhanced |
| 2. | Pain and sufferings |
40,000 | 50,000 | enhanced |
| 3. | Loss of income |
36,000 (4 x 9,000) |
54,000 (6 x 9,000) |
enhanced |
| 4. | Transport | 10,000 | 10,000 | confirmed |
| 5. | Nutritious food |
10,000 | 25,000 | enhanced |
| 6. | Medical expenses |
10,000 | 10,000 | confirmed |
| 7. | Attender charges |
10,000 | 20,000 | enhanced |
| 8. | Comfort and amenities |
10,000 | 20,000 | enhanced |
| Total | 1,96,000 after 50% deduction =Rs.98,000/- |
3,35,250 after 25% deduction =Rs.2,51,437.5 |
enhanced by Rs.55,437.5/- |
9.In fine, this appeal stands partly allowed, and the compensation is
enhanced from Rs.98,000/- to Rs.2,51,437.5/- . The second respondent is
now required to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest at
6/8
C.M.A No.1345 of 2022
7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, less any amount already deposited within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement. On such deposit being made, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with proportionate interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already withdrawn. The appellant is directed to pay the necessary Court Fee, if any, on the enhanced award amount. No Costs.
21.12.2023
Anu Index: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry-cum- the Court of Special Officer-cum-Additional Sub-Judge, Puducherry
7/8
C.M.A No.1345 of 2022
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
Anu
C.M.A.No.1345 of 2022
21.12.2023
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal considering 50% negligence to the victim was adequate.
Whether the Tribunal correctly reconstructed the accident sequence based on visible damage to the motorcycle versus the car.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ambedkar
Balasubramanian
The Divisional Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
N.Seshasayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
