Partly allowed

N.Dhanasekaran v. P.Prabhu Dass

Madras HC14 Oct 2024CMA/1387/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant appealed for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered as a pillion rider in a motorcycle accident, having sustained 17% partial permanent disability. The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.1,85,200/- to Rs.3,45,142/- with 7.5% interest and partly allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,85,200/- to Rs.3,45,142/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.; insurer directed to deposit within four weeks; no costs.

N.Dhanasekaran Vs P.Prabhu Dass — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMA.No.1387 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

C.M.A.No.1387 of 2024

N. Dhanasekaran

.... Appellant

vs.

P. Prabhu Dass

¶11

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Sillingi Building, 4th Floor, No.134, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 17.10.2023 in M.C.O.P.3229/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. K. Balaji R1 : No appearance For R2 : Mr.K. Swaminathan

¶14

1/9

¶15

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

¶16

CMA.No.1387 of 2024

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.3229/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai, and he filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 17.01.2018.

¶19

The case of the claimant is that on 17.01.2018, he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration number TN-22-CA-5438 on M.K.N. Road, Alandur Subway, Chennai, and at about 16.45 hours, a speeding motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-12W-4654, belonging to the first respondent, came in the opposite direction and hit the motorcycle in which he was travelling as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries all over his body. He was immediately rushed to MIOT hospital, Chennai, where he was treated as an in patient for 16 days.

¶20

2/9

¶21

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

¶22

CMA.No.1387 of 2024

¶23

2.1. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of

¶24

the driver of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-12-W-4654 was the cause of the accident and that since the said motorcycle was insured with the second respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him.

¶25

In the Tribunal the owner of the offending motorcycle remained absent and was set ex parte . The second respondent insurance company resisted the claim petition on all the grounds available to the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶26

The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-12-W-4654 and directed the second respondent Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.1,85,200/- to the appellant/claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal further held that the liability of the owner of the offending motorcycle and

¶27

3/9

¶28

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

¶29

CMA.No.1387 of 2024

¶30

the insurance company is joint and several.

¶31

Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

¶32

Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶33

Heard Mr. K. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the

¶34

appellant and Mr.K. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company.

¶35

Mr. K. Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant contended

¶36

that the claimant was working as a driver and had sustained 17% of partial permanent disability on account of the accident. However, the Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of Rs.1,85,200/- towards compensation. He, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the same.

¶37

Per contra, Mr.K. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, had awarded just compensation and

¶38

4/9

¶39

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

¶40

CMA.No.1387 of 2024

¶41

therefore the same need not be disturbed in the present appeal.

¶42

A perusal of the records shows that the claimant was working

¶43

as a driver in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai and he sustained "Compound Grade III B Lateral Malleolus Fracture". The Medical Board attached to the Government Stanley Medical College Hospital, Chennai, assessed the partial permanent disability of the claimant as 17%. It is admitted by the claimant that he was given alternative job in the same Corporation. Hence there is no functional disability as far as the present case is concerned. The Tribunal therefore awarded a sum of Rs.85,000/- towards partial permanent disability by fixing a sum of Rs.5,000/- per percentage of disability. Considering the age of the claimant and the year of accident, a sum of Rs.7,000/- per percentage of disability is awarded. Hence, a sum of Rs.1,19,000/- is awarded towards partial permanent disability. The medical bills issued by MIOT hospital, Chennai, show that the claimant had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,16,142/- towards his treatment.

¶44

5/9

¶45

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

¶46

CMA.No.1387 of 2024

¶47

9.1. The following tabular column would show the amount

¶48

awarded by the Tribunal and the enhanced amount awarded by this Court

¶49

under various heads.

¶50

*S.No.*	*Description*	*Amount* *awarded by* *Tribunal (Rs.)*	*Amount* *awarded by this* *Court (Rs.)*
1.	Partial permanent disability	85,000/- (17x5000)	1,19,000/- 17x7000)
2.	Pain and sufferings	35,000/-	50,000/-
3.	Transportation	4,000/-	10,000/-
4.	Medical expenses	26,306/-	1,16,142/-
5.	Extra nourishment	10,000/-	20,000/-
6.	Attender charges	4,800/-	10,000/-
7.	Loss of amenities	20,000/-	20,000/-
		1,85,106/- Rounded off to 1,85,200/-	3,45,142/-

¶51

9.2. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,45,142/- that would carry interest at the rate of 7.5%

¶52

per annum.

¶53

6/9

¶54

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

CMA.No.1387 of 2024

10. In the result,

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

¶59

ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,45,142/-

¶60

iii. The appellant / claimant is directed to pay court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if any, and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after receipt of Court fee.

¶61

iv. The second Respondent, the United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.3,45,142/- (less the amount already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.3229/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order/uploading of this order.

¶62

7/9

¶63

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

¶64

CMA.No.1387 of 2024

¶65

¶66

v. On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is at liberty to

¶67

withdraw the same, after following due process of law.

¶68

vi. The claimant is not entitled to claim interest for the period of delay of 5 days in preferring this appeal.

¶69

14.10.2024

¶70

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

¶71

¶72

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

¶73

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Sillingi Building, 4th Floor, No.134, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶74

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

¶75

8/9

¶76

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

CMA.No.1387 of 2024

R.HEMALATHA, J.

bga

C.M.A.No.1387 of 2024

¶81

14.10.2024

¶82

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

¶83

9/9

N.Dhanasekaran v. P.Prabhu Dass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Dhanasekaran v. P.Prabhu Dass

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

The Divisional manager, Vs Uzher Ahamed

Ayub Basha Vs the Managing Director

Basha Vs E.Sathish

Patroja Vs Narayanan C.N.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs S. Saroja

Kowsalya Vs Ramalingam