Partly allowed

Imayavaramban v. R.Thangavel

Madras HC18 Mar 2024CMA/2114/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Injury motor accident appeal seeking enhancement of tribunal award of Rs.1,90,000/-. The court found no loss of earning power warranting the multiplier method, but raised disability compensation to Rs.2,00,000 and notional income to Rs.7,000/month, adding loss of amenities, enhancing total award to Rs.2,87,000 with interest, confirming pay-and-recovery against owner.

What the court decided

AI extract

Imayavaramban Vs R.Thangavel — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Judgment Reserved on :07.03.2024

¶4

Judgment Delivered on :18.03.2024

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKA RAMAN

¶7

C.M.A.No.2114 of 2021

¶8

Imayavaramban ...Appellant

¶9

.Vs.

¶10

1.R.Thangavel (The 1st respondent remained ex-parte before Tribunal. Hence, notice may be dispensed with) 2.M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager, No.50-A, Pallivasal Street, Perambalur - 621 212 ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decreetal order in M.C.O.P.No.533 of 2017 dated 23.03.2021, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal District Judge, Perambalur.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.S.Kamadevan For R1 : Mr.C.Prabakaran For R2 : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraaghavan

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The claim petitioner is the appellant herein seeking enhancement

¶18

of compensation of the award in M.C.O.P.No.533 of 2017.

¶19

The factum of accident, manner of accident, rash and negligent on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and vehicle being insured

¶20

with the second respondent/Insurance company are not in dispute.

¶21

It is the case of injury.

¶22

On the date of the accident, the claim petitioner's age is 22 years old, working as a Installer of Digital Banner Boards, sustained injury. He was referred to Medical Board wherein Ex.C1 Disability Certificate was issued by the District Medical Board, has assessed his physical impairment at 45% and the trial Court has granted an award of Rs.1,90,000/- and hence the appeal.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶24

The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the multiplier method has to be applied as he suffered functional disability.

¶25

Perusal of Ex.P1 clearly reveals that sutured wound of 2cm left side SCH (+), periorbital edema (+), tenderness (-) maxillary region and tenderness (+) infraclavicular region. The petitioner was admitted on

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

25.04.2017 and surgery was done on 27.04.2017 and discharged on

¶29

06.05.2017. Ex.P2 is the CT Scan report and Ex.P3 is the medical prescription.

¶30

Hence, I find that these injuries sustained by the claim petitioner has not resulted in any loss of his earning power and therefore does not satisfied the ratio laid down in Rajkumar's case. Accordingly, the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claim petitioner stands negatived.

¶31

The claim petitioner was referrred to District Medical Board for ascertaining the disability. The District Medical Board issued Disability Certificate and his physical impairment is 40%. The disability percentage for the purpose of calculating compensation is fixed at 40% and fixed Rs.3,000/- for 1% of disability and the same is hereby enhanced at Rs.5,000/- (Rs.5000x40%=Rs.2,00,000/-)

¶32

Considering the year of accident and nature of work, the notional income is fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month and the same is hereby enhanced to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.7000x6=Rs.42,000/-)

¶33

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss

¶34

of amenities. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,000/-

¶35

towards loss of amenities. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

¶37

other heads are just and reasonable and hence those are confirmed.

¶38

12. Before the Tribunal, taking into consideration of the

¶39

admission made by R.W.1 in the cross-examination that in the goods vehicle, the claim petitioner was working as a coolie to load & unload the goods. At the time of the accident more than 5 persons has appeared to have been travelled as a gratitude passenger and hence the Tribunal has exonerated the second respondent-Insurance Company for violation of the policy condition and ordered pay and recovery and such a finding by the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference.

¶40

13. The break-up details of the compensation is as under :

¶41

*Sl.* No	*Heads under which the* *amount is awarded* *Amou* *by the*	*nt awarded* *Tribunal –* *Rs.*	*Amount awarded* *by this Court –* *Rs.*
1.	Disability Rs.	1,20,000/-	Rs. 2,00,000/-
2.	Loss of earning Rs.	30,000/-	Rs. 42,000/-
3.	Extra Nourishment Rs.	10,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-
4.	Pain and suffering Rs.	20,000/-	Rs. 20,000/-
5.	Transportation and medical expenses Rs.	10,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities	-----	Rs. 5,000/-
	Total Rs.	1,90,000/-	Rs. 2,87,000/-

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

In total, the claim Petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,87,000 (Rupees

¶45

Two lakhs and eighty seven thousand only) .

¶46

In fine,

¶47

(i) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed,

¶48

enhancing the award amount from Rs.1,90,000/- to 2,87,000/- to the extent indicated above, along with 7.5% interest per annum. No costs.

¶49

(ii) the 2^nd Respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount, if any already deposited. Accordingly pay and recovery is ordered.

¶50

(iii) on such deposit being made, the claim Petitioner/Appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire enhanced award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the award amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.

¶51

(iv) the claim Petitioner/Appellant is directed to pay the court fee, if any, for the enhanced compensation amount and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee.

¶52

(v) The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay

¶53

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

¶54

¶55

and recovery from the first respondent.

¶56

18.03.2024

¶57

nvi

¶58

Index : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order

¶59

¶60

The Principal District Judge, Perambalur.

¶61

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

¶62

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,

¶63

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

¶64

¶65

nvi

¶66

Judgment in C.M.A.No.2114 of 2021

¶67

18.03.2024

¶68

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

Imayavaramban v. R.Thangavel

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Imayavaramban v. R.Thangavel

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

Sibin Thomas Vs M/S.Aggarwal Transport Organisation

Sumathi Vs Mr.Venkataramakrishnan

C.Karthikeyan Vs the Managing Director

Ramasamy Vs Kanagaraj

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannem Nageswaramma

Biju Chockko Vs the Tamil Nadu Principal