Partly allowed

Paramasivam v. Vivek

Madras HC13 Feb 2024CMA(MD)/1302/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Injury claimant sought enhancement of motor accident compensation after amputation of his right foot below ankle. The Court raised notional income from Rs.7,000 to Rs.8,000 per month plus Rs.2,000 future prospects, applied multiplier 13 at 50% disability, enhanced total compensation to Rs.10,12,000 and directed the insurer to deposit 90% after contributory negligence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.10,12,000/-; insurer to deposit 90%, i.e., Rs.8,22,600/-, with 7.5% interest within 8 weeks.

Paramasivam Vs Vivek — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 13.02.2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶5

C.M.A(MD)No.1302 of 2023

Paramasivam

... Appellant

Vs.

Vivek

¶10

The Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, No.58 A, Sri Anjaneya Tower, 2nd Floor, Pavala Nagar, Pandi - Villupuram Main Road, Rettipalayam, Pondicherry. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.12.2022 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 283 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Thanjavur District.

¶12

For Appellant : M/s.P.Edin Brough For R-2 : Mr.V.Sakthivel

¶13

JUDGEMENT

¶14

The claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancing the award

¶15

amount granted by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.283 of 2022, dated 16.12.2022

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Court, Thanjavur District.

¶19

It is a case of injury. The contention of the claimant is that his right foot below ankle was amputated and hence he is eligible for enhanced compensation. The claimant was working as Mechanic, hence his notional income ought to be fixed as Rs.10,000/- or Rs.12,000/- but the Tribunal has fixed his salary as Rs.7,000/-, which is on lower side.

¶20

The contention of the Insurance Company is that the disability

¶21

was fixed as 50% for the purpose of granting Government benefits and the same cannot be taken for fixing compensation. Further there is no iota of evidence produced by the claimant that he was working as Mechanic and hence the notional fixation of income as Rs.7,000/- is appropriate.

¶22

After hearing the rival submission this Court is increasing the notional income as Rs.8,000/- from Rs.7,000/- with future prospectus as Rs. 2000/-. It is seen from the records that the claimant has sustained 50% permanent disability, hence multiplier is applicable.

¶23

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

¶24

2/6

¶25

Monthly income of the claimant is Rs.8,000/25% Future prospectus is Rs.2,000/------------Total monthly income is Rs.10,000/The claimant yearly income is Rs.10,000 x 12 = Rs.1,20,000/-

¶26

Since at the time of accident the claimant was aged about 48 years

¶27

the multiplier 13 shall be applied. Therefore,

¶28

Rs.1,20,000 x 13 x 50/100 = Rs.7,80,000/-

¶29

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for compensation as

¶30

follows:

¶31

S.	Description		Amount aw	arded by	Award confirmed / enhanced /
No.			Tribunal	this Court	granted
1.	For permanent disability		Rs.6,82,500/-	Rs.7,80,000/-	enhanced
2.	For pain and suffering		Rs. 75,000/-	Rs. 75,000/-	confirmed
3.	For extra nourishment		Rs. 20,000/-	Rs. 20,000/-	confirmed
4.	For loss of income		Rs. 40,000 /-	Rs. 40,000/-	confirmed
5.	For loss of amenities		Rs. 50,000/-	Rs. 50,000/-	confirmed
6.	For attendar expenses		Rs. 25,000/-	Rs. 25,000/-	confirmed
7.	For damage of articles		Rs. 2,000/-	Rs. 2,000/-	confirmed
8.	For transport expenses		Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000/-	confirmed
		Total	Rs.9,14,500/-	Rs.10,12,000/-

¶32

This Court is enhancing a sum of Rs.10,12,000/-as compensation, from the total

¶33

compensation of Rs.9,14,500/-granted by the Tribunal. Since 10% contributory

¶34

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

¶35

3/6

¶36

negligence is fixed on the petitioner, the Insurance Company is liable to deposit 90% of the total compensation i.e., (Rs.9,14,000 – 91,400) Rs.8,22,600/-.

¶37

Accordingly, the Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.8,22,600/-, as compensation with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, less the amount if already deposited. On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, as per Law. Since this Court is enhancing the compensation, the claimant is liable to pay the balance Court fee.

¶38

With these observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No Costs.

¶39

13.02.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No KSA

¶40

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

¶41

4/6

¶42

¶43

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Thanjavur District.

¶44

The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶45

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

5/6

S.SRIMATHY, J.

KSA

Judgment made in C.M.A(MD)No.1302 of 2023

¶50

13.02.2024

¶51

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

¶52

6/6

Paramasivam v. Vivek

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramasivam v. Vivek

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

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs Arasangam

Packiyaraj Vs Balakrishnan

Chengan (Died and Exonerated), C. Veeramani, Vs C.Kannan

P.Balakrishnan Vs Barathi

Balasubramanian, Vs R.Chandra

Ganesapandian, Vs Balamurugan