Partly allowed

Mr.Lakshmirajan @ Shamugaraj v. N.Kulusamy

Madras HC12 Jun 2023CMA(MD)/1535/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil miscellaneous appeal sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court substituted the award, noting the Tribunal erred in awarding only partial medical bills and a low sum for disability, while the appellant proved 37% disability and submitted full medical reports.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's award of Rs.91,000/- was enhanced to Rs.1,76,940/- including enhanced disability compensation and full medical bills, with 7.5% interest from the date of claim. Deposit directed within

Mr.Lakshmirajan @ Shamugaraj Vs N.Kulusamy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A(MD)No.1535 of 2010

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No.1535 of 2010

¶7

Lakshmirajan @ Shanmugaraj ... Claimant/Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.N.Kulusamy

¶10

2.M/s.National Insurance Company, Through its Divisional Manager, Door No.3-A, Northveli Street, Madurai-1.

¶11

3.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Through its Managing Director, Karaikudi, (Kumbakonam Division III). ... Respondents/Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the decree and judgment, dated 10.02.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.2169 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai).

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.R.Govindaraj For R2 : M/s.P.Malini

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

C.M.A(MD)No.1535 of 2010

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The present appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai in M.C.O.P.No.2169 of 2004.

¶19

According to the injured claimant, he was aged about 21 years

¶20

and he was pursuing engineering course and he has suffered grievous injuries in view of the accident that took place on 27.06.2004. Hence, he prayed for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

¶21

The insurance company had filed a counter challenging the manner of accident, negligence and the quantum of compensation.

¶22

The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a finding that the accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. The tribunal further found that as per the disability certificate, the claimant has sustained 37% of permanent disability. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability. Though medical bills were produced to an extent of Rs.67,940/-, only a sum of Rs.16,000/- has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis been awarded. The tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-

¶23

2/6

¶24

C.M.A(MD)No.1535 of 2010

¶25

towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards disability. Challenging the said award, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant.

¶26

According to the learned counsel appearing for the claimant, the claimant was a passenger in a bus and he got injured due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry which was coming from the opposite direction. The claimant had sustained 37% disability and the tribunal had just awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability. Hence, he prayed for enhancement under the said head. He had further contended that though medical bills were produced under Exhibit P.17, totalling a sum of Rs.67,940/-, the tribunal has erroneously awarded only a sum of Rs.16,000/-. Hence, he prayed for enhancement of the compensation under the conventional heads also.

¶27

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company had contended that the tribunal has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and fixed the compensation at Rs.91,000/- which does not call for any interference.

¶28

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

¶29

I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.

¶30

3/6

¶31

C.M.A(MD)No.1535 of 2010

¶32

Admittedly, the claimant had sustained 37% disability. If a sum

¶33

of Rs.2,000/- is awarded for each percentage, the award amount under the head of partial permanent disability would come at Rs.74,000/-. The claimant has produced the medical bills under Exhibit P.17 for a sum of Rs.67,940/-. However, the tribunal has just awarded a sum of Rs.16,000/for reasons best known. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the entire medical bills. This Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.5,000/towards attender charges and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses.

¶34

In view of the above said deliberations, the award of the tribunal

¶35

is hereby modified as follows:

¶36

Partial permanent disability 37x2000	: Rs.74,000/-
Pain and suffering	: Rs.20,000/-
Medical expenses	: Rs.67,940/-
Extra nourishment	: Rs. 5,000/-
Attender Charges	: Rs. 5,000/-
Transport expenses	: Rs. 5,000/- ------------------
Total	: Rs.1,76,940/-

¶37

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

¶38

The award of the tribunal, namely Rs.91,000/- (Rupees Ninety

¶39

4/6

¶40

C.M.A(MD)No.1535 of 2010

¶41

One Thousand only) is hereby enhanced to Rs.1,76,940/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty only). The award amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim petition. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed to the extent as stated above. No costs.

¶43

12.06.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶44

gbg

¶45

¶46

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai).

¶47

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶48

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

¶49

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶50

5/6

¶51

C.M.A(MD)No.1535 of 2010

¶52

gbg

¶53

Judgment made in C.M.A(MD)No.1535 of 2010

¶54

12.06.2023

¶55

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

¶56

6/6

Mr.Lakshmirajan @ Shamugaraj v. N.Kulusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Lakshmirajan @ Shamugaraj v. N.Kulusamy

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

R.C.Diocese of Kottar Vs the Director

Ponnammal, Vs Rani

Veerammal, Vs the General Manager

Dr.Balasundaram Vs C.Thangadurai

T. Thirunarayanan Vs C. Irulappan

The Branch Manager, Vs Murugan