Partly allowed

Muthu v. Karunanithi

Madras HC28 Oct 2024CMA/109/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Miscellaneous Appeal, the Madras High Court enhanced compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to Rs.2,03,693. The Court set aside 10% contributory negligence as erroneous due to lack of evidence against the appellant and fixed notional income at Rs.10,000 based on medical records of a left wrist fracture.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,03,693 with 7.5% interest; 10% contributory negligence set aside.

Muthu Vs Karunanithi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMA.No.109 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

C.M.A.No.109 of 2023

Muthu

... Appellant

vs.

Karunanithi

¶11

The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.2, Dr.Sankaran Road, Namakkal. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 11.10.2022 in M.C.O.P.991/2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Namakkal.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran For R2 : Mr.D.Bhaskaran

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.991/2017 on the file

¶16

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Namakkal. He filed the claim

¶17

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road

¶18

1/9

¶19

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

¶20

CMA.No.109 of 2023

¶21

accident that happened on 07.07.2017.

¶22

2 . The brief case of the appellant / claimant is as follows :

¶23

On 07.07.2017, the claimant was riding a two wheeler bearing

¶24

Registration number TN 34 X 0208 on Thiruchengode - Valaraigate Kokkarayanpet main road. When he was nearing Shakthi Murugan Marriage hall, Kollapatti, a speeding tanker lorry bearing Registration number TN 33 AC 8626 hit the two wheeler, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries all over his body. He was immediately rushed to the Government hospital, Thiruchengode.

¶25

3. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker lorry bearing Registration number TN 33 AC 8626 was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him.

¶26

4. In the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle remained absent and

¶27

was set exparte . The second respondent resisted the claim petition on all the grounds available to the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor

¶28

2/9

¶29

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

¶30

CMA.No.109 of 2023

¶31

Vehicles Act.

¶32

5. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the claimant in the ratio 90:10 as the claimant did not have a valid driving licence on the date of accident and awarded compensation of Rs.1,27,074/- (90% of total compensation of Rs.1,41,193/-) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶33

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation and fastening

¶34

10% of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, the appellant / claimant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶35

7. Heard Mr.T.S.Arthanareswaran, learned counsel appearing

¶36

for the appellant and Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶37

8. Negligence:

¶38

It is seen from the records that the accident took place on

¶39

3/9

¶40

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

¶41

CMA.No.109 of 2023

¶42

Thiruchengode - Valaraigate Kokkarayanpet main road. The claimant examined himself to prove the manner of accident. His evidence was that the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle. FIR (Ex.P1) was registered against the driver of the lorry. There is nothing on record to show that the claimant also contributed to the accident. In the circumstances, fastening 10% of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant by the Tribunal is erroneous and the same is hereby set aside.

¶43

9. Quantum:

¶44

10. A perusal of the medical records shows that the claimant sustained a fracture on his left wrist. The Medical Board attached to the Government Hospital, Namakkal assessed the disability of the claimant as 15%. According to the claimant, he was working as a cook in a hotel, earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. However, no acceptable evidence was adduced by the claimant to substantiate his contention that he was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. Hence, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is fixed as notional monthly income of the deceased. On account of the injuries, the claimant would have been out of action atleast for three months and therefore a sum of Rs.30,000/- (10,000 X 3) is

¶45

4/9

¶46

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

¶47

CMA.No.109 of 2023

¶48

awarded towards loss of income. A perusal of the disability certificate shows that the claimant has not sustained any functional disability warranting this Court to adopt multiplier method. In the circumstances, a sum of Rs.7,000/- is fixed per percentage of partial permanent disability and thus a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- (15 x 7000) is awarded towards disability. The following tabular column would show the award passed by the Tribunal and the modified award passed by this Court:

¶49

S. *No.*	*Heads*	*Amount awarded by the* *Tribunal*	*Award of* *this Court*
1	Partial Permanent Disability	Rs.75,000/- (15X5,000)	Rs.1,05,000/- (15X7,000)
2	For Loss of income for three months	Rs.2,500/-	Rs.30,000/- (10,000 X 3)
3	Medical expenditure	Rs.31,193/-	Rs.31,193/-
4	Pain and sufferings	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
5	Attender charges	Rs.2,500/-	Rs.2,500/-
6	Extra nourishment	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
7	For Transport expenses	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.5,000/-
8	Total	Rs.1,41,193/- (less 10% contributory negligence) Rs.1,27,074/-	Rs.2,03,693/-

¶50

10. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

¶51

5/9

¶52

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

¶53

CMA.No.109 of 2023

¶54

enhanced to Rs.2,03,693/- that would carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per

¶55

annum.

¶56

11. In the result,

¶57

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

¶58

ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to

¶59

Rs.2,03,693/-.

¶60

iii. 10% Contributory negligence fastened on the part of claimant, is set aside.

¶61

iv. The appellant / claimant is directed to pay court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after receipt of the Court fee.

¶62

v. The liability of the first respondent (owner) and the second respondent (the United India Insurance Company Limited) is joint and several and the second respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount i.e. Rs.2,03,693/(less the amount already deposited) together with

¶63

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim

¶64

6/9

¶65

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

¶66

CMA.No.109 of 2023

¶67

petition till the date of deposit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order / uploading of this order to the credit of M .C.O.P.991/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Namakkal.

¶68

vi. On such deposit being made the appellant, claimant is permitted to

¶69

withdraw the same with accrued interest and costs, after following due process of law.

¶70

28.10.2024

¶71

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No vum

¶72

¶73

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Namakkal.

¶74

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

¶75

7/9

¶76

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

CMA.No.109 of 2023

R.HEMALATHA, J.

vum

C.M.A.No.109 of 2023

8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA.No.109 of 2023

28.10.2024

9/9

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

Muthu v. Karunanithi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthu v. Karunanithi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Company Limited Vs Arunranjith

Perarasan Vs P. Durai

Mahalakshmi Vs C.Deivam

Kannagi Vs Rajesh

Mathiyazhagan Vs P. Sellamuthu

The Divisional manager, Vs Uzher Ahamed