The Madras High Court quashed the low disability rating awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal due to lack of rebuttal evidence. It enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,65,000/- by adopting a 30% disability rate and increasing the pain and sufferings award, additionally granting travel expenses.
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(MD)No.2017 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 05.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
C.M.A(MD)No.2017 of 2013
B.Baskaran ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.G.Shanmugam
2.National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Promenade Road, Cantonment, Trichy. ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment the decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.32 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court), Trichy, dated 01.08.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.Prabhakaran for Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj For R-1 : Ex parte For R-2 : Mr.J.S.Murali
C.M.A(MD)No.2017 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.32 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruchirapalli, dated 01.08.2011.
Appeal.
4. The brief facts of the petition averments are:
The claimant has filed a petition before the Tribunal due to the accident occurred on 28.03.2006 at about 11.45 am near Trichy - Chennai Main Road at G.Corner, Ponmalai. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner was travelling in an auto bearing Registration No.TN 45 AD 6687 on 28.03.2006 at about 11.45 am near Trichy-Chennai Main Road at
C.M.A(MD)No.2017 of 2013
G.Corner at the time the vehicle bearing Registration No.TAD 1166 (Lorry) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Thereby he sustained injuries. The first respondent vehicle was insured with the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed a claim petition claiming compensation as Rs.3,00,000/-.
5. The counter filed by the second respondent are as follows:
The second respondent had filed a counter by denying the age, occupation, income of the petitioner and manner of accident. According to the second respondent, the accident took place only due to the negligence on the part of the auto driver and not occurred while due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent. The injury sustained by the petitioner are not grievous in nature. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
the petitioner was examined P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and marked as Exhibits P.1 to P.13 and on the side of the respondents none was examined and no documents were marked.
C.M.A(MD)No.2017 of 2013
C.M.A(MD)No.2017 of 2013
Tribunal without any basis reduced the disability from 30% to 10%. The petitioner due to the accident cannot do his day to day work and thereby multiplier method has to be adopted for awarding compensation, but the Tribunal failed to consider the same and awarded only the meager amount. Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.
C.M.A(MD)No.2017 of 2013
i)whether the appeal is liable to be allowed or not?
the part of the driver of the first respondent. The first respondent vehicle was insured with the second respondent on the date of accident. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.97,657/-, by taking into consideration of Rs.2,000/- per 1% of disability and arrived the disability at 10%. The contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal has taken 10% disability without any basis and the petitioner has examined the Doctor who is an expert and as per the evidence of P.W2 Doctor, the disability is 30% but the Tribunal without any rebuttal evidence suo motu reduced the disability from 30% to 10%.
C.M.A(MD)No.2017 of 2013
disability for the injuries sustained by this petitioner. In order to rebut the evidence of P.W2, the second respondent has not adduced any rebuttal evidence. Thereby without any rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal has reduced the disability from 30% to 10% which is not permissible.
the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the disability of 30%. The Tribunal has correctly awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for 1%. Thereby this Court also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for 1% of disability and thereby the award amount comes to a tune of Rs.60,000/-. Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Considering the nature of injuries, this Court is enhanced an amount of Rs.30,000/towards pain and sufferings. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment in two places and also awarded a sum of Rs.47,650/- towards medical bills and a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the attendance expenses. The above said award amount awarded by the Tribunal in other heads are fair and reasonable. Thereby, this Court need not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal failed to award compensation for Transport expenses. Hence, this Court is
C.M.A(MD)No.2017 of 2013
inclined to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards Travel expenses. In total,
the petitioner is entitle to a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- as tabulated below:
| 1. | Disability | Rs.60,000/- |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Pain and Sufferings | Rs.30,000/- |
| 3. | Extra Nourishment | Rs.10,000/- |
| 4. | Medical Bills | Rs.47,650/- |
| 5. | Travel Expenses | Rs.10,000/- |
| 6. | Attendance Expenses | Rs.5,000/- |
| Total | Rs.1,62,650/- | |
| Rounded off | Rs.1,65,000/- |
C.M.A(MD)No.2017 of 2013
being deposit made by the second respondent, the petitioner is entitled to
withdraw the award amount by filing appropriate petition as per law. There
shall be no order as to costs.
05.01.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR
To
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Record Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.M.A(MD)No.2017 of 2013
P. DHANABAL, J.
BTR
C.M.A(MD)No.2017 of 2013
05.01.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in reducing the disability from 30% to 10% without rebuttal evidence?
Whether the compensation award including disability, pain and sufferings, and other heads is enhanced appropriately?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B.Baskaran
G.Shanmugam
National Insurance Company Limited
P. DHANABAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
