Partly allowed

M.Sathishkumar v. D.Vinothkumar

Madras HC27 Mar 2024CMA/319/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Enhancement appeal against Tribunal award in an injury motor accident claim. Court confirmed negligence finding, raised notional income to Rs.7,500/- and functional disability to 15%, enhanced attender, pain, nutrition heads, adding transportation charges.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced from Rs.8,68,988/- to Rs.10,52,628/- with 7.5% interest; insurer directed to deposit enhanced amount within eight weeks.

M.Sathishkumar Vs D.Vinothkumar — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.No.319 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on Pronounced on 22.02.2024 27.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

C.M.A.No.319 of 2021

¶7

M.Sathishkumar Son of Marudhachalam residing at Chinnakaliamman Kovil Street Dharapuram Post Tiruppur District. ... Appellant Vs.

¶8

1.D.Vinothkumar residing at 262, Velacherry Main Road East Tambaram Chennai 2.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., CBO-1 Sivacomplex, 2^nd Floor No.22-C, Sarada College Main Road Salem 636 016 ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the

¶10

1/10

¶11

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

¶12

C.M.A.No.319 of 2021

¶13

Judgment and Decree dated 04.04.2019 passed in MCOP.No.351 of 2015 on

¶14

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Judge No.2, Salem.

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.C.Thangaraju

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.J.Chandran (for R2)

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated

¶19

04.04.2019 passed in MCOP.No.351 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Judge No.2, Salem.

¶20

2.The claim Petitioner is the Appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

¶21

3.The claim Petitioner filed MCOP.No.351 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Judge No.2, Salem, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 03.01.2015. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,68,988/-

¶22

2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

C.M.A.No.319 of 2021

¶24

with interest at the rate of 7.5%. Aggrieved against the same and seeking enhancement, he has preferred this Appeal.

¶25

4.The factum of the accident, manner of the accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1 st Respondent's vehicle, insured with the

¶26

2nd Respondent are not under challenge in this Appeal. Accordingly, the finding rendered by the trial Court that the accident taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1 st Respondent's vehicle, insured with the 2 nd Respondent are hereby confirmed.

¶27

5.During the trial, on the side of the claim Petitioner, PW1 was examined, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked and on the side of the Respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked and the Ex.C1 was marked as court document.

¶28

6.Heard the learned counsel for the claim Petitioner and learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶29

3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

C.M.A.No.319 of 2021

¶31

7.Learned counsel for the claim Petitioner would contend that the claim Petitioner was aged 17 years old at the time of the accident and notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,500/- is too low and even though the disability assessed by the Medical Board in Ex.C1 is 30%, the Tribunal restricted it to 10% functional disability. Hence he seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶32

8.Learned counsel for the Insurance company would contend that the claim Petitioner was aged about 17 years at the time of the accident. The claim Petitioner does not have necessary age even to get driving licence at the time of the accident. The Doctor who treated the claim Petitioner at the time of the accident also noted the smell of alcohol and the case has also been closed as mistake of fact. Hence, he made submission in support of the award of the Tribunal.

¶33

9.The claim Petitioner has filed Ex.P.8/copy of Aadhar card, which reveals the date of birth of the claim Petitioner as 30.06.1987. The date of accident is 03.01.2015, therefore as on the date of accident, the age of the claim Petitioner is 17 years. In the said accident he suffered the following injuries:

¶34

4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.M.A.No.319 of 2021

¶36

“1.Left temporal and parietal EDH

¶37

2.Right frontal haemorrhage

¶38

3.Left femur shaft fracture

¶39

4.Left tibia shaft fracture with foot drop

¶40

5.Contused lacerated wound over anterior aspect of tibia, ankle and heel.”

¶41

As per Ex.C1, the Medical Board has fixed the permanent disability at 30% and

¶42

it observed as under:

¶43

“1.He has difficulty in climbing stairs, walking on slopes, 2.He has difficulty is sitting crossed leg, kneel and squatting on the floor

¶44

3.Pain at the fracture site. He has deformity of the left leg

¶45

4.He has loss of sensation over the skin graft region”

¶46

10.The Tribunal has fixed the notional income at Rs.6,500/-, taking into

¶47

consideration the date of the accident, the same is enhanced to Rs.7,500/-. The

¶48

Tribunal has added 40% towards future prospects and adopted '18' as multiplier. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajaykumar

¶49

& another reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 581 SC summarised the principles for assessment of functional disability. The trial Court has taken note of the

¶50

injuries as reflected in the disability certificate (30%) issued by the Medical

¶51

5/10

¶52

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

¶53

C.M.A.No.319 of 2021

¶54

Board, fixed the functional disability at 10%. Based on the injuries sustained by the claim Petitioner, I am inclined to fix the same at 15%. Hence, the

¶55

pecuniary loss sustained by the claim Petitioner is re-assessed as follows:

¶56

[Rs.7,500/- + (40% of 7500/-)] x 12 x 18 x 15% = Rs.3,40,200/-

¶57

11.The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards attender charges. Ex.P.4/ discharge summary reveals that the claim Petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient for the periods from 08.01.2015 to 27.01.2015 and 12.03.2015 to 02.04.2015. Hence a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards attender charges. Based on Ex.P.5(s), the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,01,928/-. The same is hereby confirmed.

¶58

12.The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings, the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities, the same is confirmed. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition charges, the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.500/towards damages to clothes, the same is also hereby confirmed. Apart from

¶59

6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

C.M.A.No.319 of 2021

¶61

this a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards transportation charges.

¶62

S.No.	Heads	Amount (Rs.)
1	Functional disability	340200
2	Pain and sufferings	30000
3	Loss of amenities	25000
4	Medical expenses	601928
5	Nutrition charges	20000
6	Attender charges	25000
7	Transportation	10000
8	Damages to clothes	500
	Total	1052628

¶63

The Tribunal has awarded 7.5% interest, the same is also hereby confirmed.

¶64

13.In total, the claim Petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,52,628/(Rupees ten lakh fifty two thousand six hundred and twenty eight only).

¶65

In fine,

¶66

(i) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed, enhancing the award amount from Rs.8,68,988/- to Rs.10,52,628/- to the extent indicated above, with 7.5% interest per annum. No Costs.

¶67

(ii) the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount

¶68

7/10

¶69

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

¶70

C.M.A.No.319 of 2021

¶71

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.

¶72

(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.

¶73

(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.

¶74

27.03.2024

¶75

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

¶76

sai

¶77

8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶78

C.M.A.No.319 of 2021

¶79

¶80

To The Special Sub Judge 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Salem

¶81

9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶82

C.M.A.No.319 of 2021

¶83

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J,

¶84

sai

¶85

Pre-delivery Judgment made in C.M.A.No.319 of 2021

¶86

Dated: 27.03.2024

¶87

10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Sathishkumar v. D.Vinothkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sathishkumar v. D.Vinothkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohamed Ali @ Ali Allah Babu Vs N. Venkatesh

The Manager Vs Gopal Samy

Sakthivel Vs the Managing Director

R Emayavaramabn Vs State Rep.by

Saranya Vs M. Karthikeyan

Radha Vs Balakrishnan