Motor accident appeal on remand from the Supreme Court for fixation of fair compensation to a minor injured in a 1996 road accident who lost vision in both eyes. Applying Master Mallikarjunar's disability-based compensation slabs and assessing 40% disability, the court enhanced compensation to Rs.5 lakhs with interest at 7.5% per annum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.No.537 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.537 of 2000
N.Prakash (Minor) rep. by Mother and next friend Hamsa
... Appellant
Vs.
(was set exparte in the Trial Court)
... Respondents
Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2000 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3934 of 1996 on the file of the 3rd Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : M/s.P.T.Saleem Fathima for M/s.M.Swamikannu For Respondents : Mr.D.Baskaran for R2
J U D G M E N T
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ claimant challenging
1/7
C.M.A.No.537 of 2000
the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.3934 of 1996 dated 25.01.2000 on the file of the 3rd Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that on 04.10.1996 at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant was standing on the Southern side of the Vaidhyanathan Flyover at Thondiarpet and thereafter was walking from West to East. At that time, the vehicle belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant, due to which, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was a minor at the time of accident and now he attained majority.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that thereafter, the appellant/ claimant filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming a sum of Rs.4Lakhs as compensation. After adjudication, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred this
2/7
C.M.A.No.537 of 2000
appeal seeking enhancement in compensation. This Court vide judgment dated 11.09.2007 made in C.M.A.No.537 of 2000 enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. for the enhanced compensation from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the order of this Court and remanded back the matter to this Court on the ground that the appellant is entitled to get reasonable compensation.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that since the appellant lost his vision completely in the right eye and partially in the left eye, the appellant is entitled to get compensation by following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6452 = (2014) 14 SCC 396 [Master Mallikarjunar Vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. And another] .
5.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company submitted that this Court may fix reasonable
3/7
C.M.A.No.537 of 2000
compensation by following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6452 = (2014) 14 SCC 396 [Master Mallikarjunar Vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. And another] .
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7.The accident and the manner in which the accident happened are not disputed. The Hon'ble Apex Court has remanded back the matter to this Court only for fixation of fair compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the claimant and this Court enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,65,000/-.
8.As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6452 = (2014) 14 SCC 396 [Master Mallikarjunar Vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. And another] , the appropriate compensation, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body should be Rs.3 lakhs;
4/7
C.M.A.No.537 of 2000
upto 60% should be Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90% should be Rs.5 lakhs and above 90% should be Rs.6 lakhs.
9.In the present case, the Doctor has assessed the disability at 40%. Following the decision cited supra, the appropriate compensation would be Rs.4 Lakhs. Since the accident is of the year 1996 and since the appellant lost his vision completely in the right eye and partially in the left eye and considering the compensation awarded under the other heads, this Court is inclined to fix a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation to the appellant/ claimant.
10.Accordingly, the appellant/ claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5%p.a. from the date of petition to till date (21.11.2024). It is known from the judgment of this Court dated 11.09.2007 made in C.M.A.No.537 of 2000 that the appellant has attained the age of majority.
11.The second respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified/ enhanced award amount before the Tribunal
5/7
C.M.A.No.537 of 2000
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire modified/ enhanced award amount with accrued interest and proportionate costs, after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making proper and necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellant/ claimant is directed to pay the requisite Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required.
12.The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed on the above terms. The judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.3934 of 1996 dated 25.01.2000 by the 3rd Small Causes Court, Chennai, is modified to the above extent. No costs.
21.11.2024
pri
Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No
To
1.The 3rd Small Causes Court, Chennai.
6/7
C.M.A.No.537 of 2000
M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri
C.M.A.No.537 of 2000
21.11.2024
7/7
1 issue framed by the court
What is fair compensation for a claimant who lost complete vision in one eye and partial vision in the other, with disability assessed at 40%, on remand from the Supreme Court?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Master Mallikarjunar Vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. And anotherFollowed¶8
2013 AIR SCW 6452 = (2014) 14 SCC 396 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Prakash (Minor) rep. by Mother and next friend Hamsa
Irfaan
United India Insurance Company Limited
M.Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
