Dismissed

Lakshmanan v. Periyasamy

Madras HC6 Dec 2024CMA/1735/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A claimant sought enhancement of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation for injuries sustained in a 2002 road accident at age 12, contending the disability award was too low. The High Court found Rs.3,000 per percentage of disability appropriate for a 2002 accident and held the total award just and proper.

What the court decided

AI extract

Lakshmanan Vs Periyasamy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A. No.1735 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶6

C.M.A. No.1735 of 2022

¶7

Lakshmanan

¶8

... Petitioner/ Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Periyasamy

¶11

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Salem Main Road, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. ... Respondents / Respondents

¶12

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.07.2017, made in M.C.O.P. No.2347 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. D. Rameshkumar For R1 : No Appearance For R2 : Mr. J. Vijayaraghavan

¶14

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶16

C.M.A. No.1735 of 2022

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.2347 of 2014 dated 26.07.2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri.

¶19

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein according to their litigative status and rank before the Tribunal. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is as follows:

¶20

The case of the claimant is that, the claimant has filed a claim petition seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, by invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the injuries sustained by him, in the road accident on 10.09.2002 at about 09:00 AM, while he was walking on the Salem - Dharmapuri NH road, near Kurunji Nagar Checkpost, within the jurisdiction of Thoppur Police station. Though, the accident has taken place in the year 2002, the claim petition was filed only in the year 2010 and the same is disposed of in the year 2017.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶22

C.M.A. No.1735 of 2022

¶23

¶24

Before the Tribunal, the first respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The second respondent - insurance company contested the claim disputing the negligence as well as quantum of compensation, claimed by the claimant. On the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked, on the side of the second respondent, no witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked.

¶25

The Tribunal after considering the evidence placed on record, accepted the case of the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and directed the second respondent - insurance company to pay the compensation.

¶26

Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation, the claimant has

¶27

come forward with this appeal. The second respondent - insurance company has not filed any appeal, challenging the award of the Tribunal.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant submits

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶30

C.M.A. No.1735 of 2022

¶31

that the claimant was 12 years old, at the time of accident and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, more particularly, the compensation awarded under the head disability is on the lower side, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability, therefore, prays to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶32

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the compensation quantified is excessive, however, they have not filed any appeal against the order of the Tribunal, hence prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶33

I have considered the submissions made on both sides and

¶34

perused the entire materials available on record.

¶35

The Tribunal by relying on the evidence placed on record, more particularly, the disability assessed by P.W.2 - Doctor, who had stated that the claimant has sustained both bone fracture and assessed 35% disability, fixed Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability and awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- under the head disability. Since, the accident has taken place in

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶37

C.M.A. No.1735 of 2022

¶38

the year 2002, awarding Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability is in accordance with law and as per the norms followed by this Court, therefore, the same is hereby confirmed.

¶39

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- each under the head pain and suffering, transportation expenses, attendant charge and extra Nutrition and Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Taking note of the nature of injury, age of the claimant at the time of accident and date of accident, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the same needs no modification or enhancement. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in this appeal.

¶40

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, the order of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any stands closed. There shall be no order as to cost.

¶41

06.12.2024

¶42

stn Index:Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/No Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No

¶43

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

¶44

5/6

¶45

C.M.A. No.1735 of 2022

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

stn

To:

The Special Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri.

¶50

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Chennai.

¶51

C.M.A. No.1735 of 2022

¶52

06.12.2024

¶53

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

¶54

6/6

Lakshmanan v. Periyasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Lakshmanan v. Periyasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaliammal Vs M.P.Shanmugha Raja

S.Murugaiyan Vs Angammal (1st Plaintiff Died)

S.Sathishkumar Vs S.Kamalakannan

R. Esthar Jeyarani Vs M/S Shakthi Finance Limited

P.Nadarajan Vs v.Elumalai

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs S.Ashok Kumar