Partly allowed

Deepak @ Deepan v. the Managing Director

Madras HC11 Sept 2023CMA/1569/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against compensation award in a motor vehicle accident involving a bus and a two-wheeler. Court enhanced compensation by raising notional income from Rs.8000 to Rs.10000 per month, increasing total award from Rs.12.66 lakh to Rs.15.69 lakh.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.12,66,600 to Rs.15,69,000. Ordered to pay interest at 7.5% per annum from date of petition till deposit.

Deepak @ Deepan Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.No.1569 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.09.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

C.M.A.No.1569 of 2023

¶7

Deepak @ Deepan

¶8

...Appellant/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Managing Director, TNSTC Villupuram Ltd., Kancheepuram District – 631 552. ...Respondents/Respondent

¶11

Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and Judgment dated 03.12.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.4732 of 2015 in the Court of Principal Special Judge, Special Court under E.C. & NDPS Act, Chennai – 104.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.U.Chithambaram For Respondent : Mr.C.R.Suresh Kumar

¶13

_____1/8

¶14

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

¶15

C.M.A.No.1569 of 2023

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The appellant has preferred the above appeal challenging the quantum

¶18

of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶19

The appellant had filed a claim petition, stating that on 04.04.2015, at about 11.45 hours while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a bike bearing Reg.No. TN-22-U-1912, a Government Bus bearing Reg.No.TN-21N-0942 belonging to the respondent Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle, in which, the appellant travelled. As a result of which, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and hence, entitled to compensation.

¶20

The respondent resisting the claim petition and stating that the accident took place only on account of the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler, in which the two pillion riders including the appellant travelled; that the rider did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident; and that in any case, the claim made by the appellant is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶21

The appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and Doctors who treated

¶22

_____2/8

¶23

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

¶24

C.M.A.No.1569 of 2023

¶25

him as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked sixteen documents as Exs.P1 to P16. The respondent examined R.W.1/conductor of the bus, belonging to the respondent Corporation. However, they did not mark any document.

¶26

The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence on record directed the respondent Corporation to pay a total compensation of Rs.12,66,600/- to the appellant.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the Medical Board assessed the disability as 90%, the Tribunal treated the functional disability only at 70%, which is erroneous; and that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre and prayed for enhancement of compensation.

¶28

The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra , submitted that

¶29

the award of compensation is excessive; that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the rider of the two wheeler was guilty of negligence as he had travelled

¶30

3/8

¶31

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

¶32

C.M.A.No.1569 of 2023

¶33

with two pillion riders. The learned counsel further submitted that in the facts,

¶34

the notional income fixed by the Tribunal was correct as the appellant had neither proved the avocation nor the income before the Tribunal. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶36

On perusal of the records, this Court finds that the appellant had examined P.W.2 and P.W.3/Doctors to prove the nature of injuries and disability suffered by the appellant. P.W.2/Ortho Doctor had issued the Disability Certificate/Ex.P.15, assessed the disability percentage as 60%. P.W.3, who is an Eye Doctor had assessed the disability as 30% partial permanent disability. Considering, the disability certificate and the avocation of the appellant, the Tribunal fixed the functional disability as 70%.

¶37

This Court is of the view that the said finding cannot be faulted. The Tribunal had rightly adopted multiplier method in the facts and circumstances of this

¶38

4/8

¶39

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

¶40

C.M.A.No.1569 of 2023

¶41

case. However, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly notional income as Rs.8000/-. Considering the year of the accident, age of the appellant and his avocation, this Court is of the view that it would be just and reasonable to fix Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income. Thus, the award under the head Pecuniary Loss is modified as follows:-

¶42

Rs.10,000/- X 12 X 18 X 70 / 100 = 15,12,000/-

¶43

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable and hence, the same are confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.12,66,600/- to Rs.15,69,000/-, break-up as follows :-

¶44

Sl. No	Description	Amount awarded by Tribunal	Amount awarded by this Court	Award confirmed or enhanced or
		(Rs)	(Rs)	granted
1.	Pecuniary Loss	12,09,600/-	15,12,000/-	Enhanced
2.	Pain and Sufferings	40,000/-	40,000/-	Confirmed

¶45

5/8

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

C.M.A.No.1569 of 2023

¶49

3.	Extra Nourishments, Attender Charges and Medical Transportation	15,000/-	15,000/-	Confirmed
4.	Medical Expenses	2,000/-	2,000/-	Confirmed
	Total	12,66,600/-	15,69,000/-	Enhanced by Rs.3,02,400/ -

¶50

With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.12,66,600/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.15,69,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period if any) from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The appellant is directed to

¶51

_____6/8

¶52

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

¶53

C.M.A.No.1569 of 2023

¶54

pay the necessary Court Fee, if any, on the enhanced award amount.

No costs.

11.09.2023

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶59

Copy To:-

¶60

1.The Principal Special Judge, Special Court under E.C. & NDPS Act, Chennai – 104.

¶61

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶62

7/8

¶63

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

¶64

C.M.A.No.1569 of 2023

¶65

SUNDER MOHAN, J

¶66

¶67

C.M.A. No. 1569 of 2023

¶68

11.09.2023

¶69

_____8/8

¶70

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

Deepak @ Deepan v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak @ Deepan v. the Managing Director

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

Amudha Vs S.Satheeswaran

Praveen Kumar Vs Balakrishnan

Padmanabhan Vs Balakrishnan

The United Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Vasantha

The Managing Director Vs E.Mohamed Barook

The Manager Vs Madhu