Partly allowed

S.Pazhaniappan v. S.Kannan

Madras HC15 Oct 2024CMA(MD)/847/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench enhanced motor accident compensation for the appellant despite no functional disability. The court fixed notional income and granted enhanced awards for loss of income, pain and sufferings, attendant charges, and transportation while confirming disability and medical expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,38,979/- including interest, covering enhanced loss of income, pain and sufferings, attendant charges, and transportation.

S.Pazhaniappan Vs S.Kannan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD) No.847 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

C.M.A.(MD) No.847 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)No.12939 of 2024

S.Pazhaniappan.

... Appellant

Vs.

1.S.Kannan, 2.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., No.111, Achutha, Bharathidasan Salai, Contonment, Trichirappalli.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 30.08.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.453 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kulithalai.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj For Respondents for R1 : Dispensed with for R2 : Mr.Shylappa Kalayan

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 1 of 7_

¶15

C.M.A.(MD) No.847 of 2024

¶16

***** J U D G M E N T

¶17

The instant appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶18

Since the findings on liability and negligence are not in dispute, the facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are unnecessary for the disposal of this case.

¶19

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the appellant suffered fractures on both bones in right leg and injuries in both hands, the Tribunal had not awarded the compensation by adopting multiplier method as the appellant was doing physical labour as an agricultural coolie. The compensation under all the heads is meagre and hence, prayed for enhancement.

¶20

Notice to the first respondent was dispensed with vide order of

¶21

this Court dated 22.07.2024 as he remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

¶22

The learned counsel for the second respondent, per contra,

¶23

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

¶24

Page No. 2 of 7

¶25

C.M.A.(MD) No.847 of 2024

¶26

submitted that the appellant had not established the functional disability and therefore, the compensation by adopting the percentage method cannot be faulted; and that the compensation under the other heads is also reasonable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶27

The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is ‘whether

¶28

the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable’

¶29

Admittedly, the appellant suffered fractures in both the bones on

¶30

his right leg and injuries in both hands. However, there is no evidence to suggest that he had suffered functional disability. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that there is no functional disability cannot be faulted. However, it is seen from the records that the appellant had undergone three surgeries and had taken treatment as an inpatient in five spells, for a total period of 35 days. Considering the said fact and the age of the appellant, this Court is of the view that the compensation under the other heads can be enhanced.

¶31

The appellant was 50 years at the time of accident. Considering

¶32

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

¶33

Page No. 3 of 7

¶34

C.M.A.(MD) No.847 of 2024

¶35

the year of accident, his age and his avocation, this Court is of the view

¶36

that the notional income can be fixed at Rs.12,000/- p.m. The evidence suggests that he could not pursue his avocation for a period of six months. Therefore, the compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ can be enhanced to Rs.12,000/- x 6 = Rs.72,000/-.

¶37

The compensation under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ can be enhanced to Rs.75,000/-. The ‘attendant charges’ can be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. The ‘transportation charges’ can be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as follows:

¶38

*Sl.* No	*Description* A *awar* Tr	*mount* *ded by the* *ibunal*	*Amount* *awarded by this* *Court*	*Award* *confirmed,* *enhanced or* *granted*
1	Disability Rs.	1,25,000/-	Rs. 1,25,000/-	Confirmed
2	Loss of income Rs.	24,000/-	Rs. 72,000/-	Enhanced
3	Medical expenses Rs.	3,26,979/-	Rs. 3,26,979/-	Confirmed
4	Pain and sufferings Rs.	25,000/-	Rs. 75,000/-	Enhanced
5	Extra nourishment Rs.	15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-	Confirmed
6	Attendant charges Rs.	5,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-	Enhanced
7	Transportation charges Rs.	5,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-	Enhanced
	Total Rs.	5,25,979/-	Rs. 6,38,979/-	Enhanced by Rs.1,13,000/-

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 7_

¶40

C.M.A.(MD) No.847 of 2024

¶41

The second respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.6,38,979/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Nine only) together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization (excluding the period of dismissal for default if any) and proportionate costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount with interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.

¶43

The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the necessary Court Fee on the enhanced amount.

¶44

12.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.

¶45

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶46

15.10.2024

¶47

Index: Yes/ No NCC: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order apd

¶48

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

¶49

____________ Page No. 5 of 7_

¶50

C.M.A.(MD) No.847 of 2024

¶51

To:

¶52

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kulithalai.

¶53

2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 6 of 7_

¶55

C.M.A.(MD) No.847 of 2024

¶56

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶57

apd

¶58

C.M.A.(MD) No.847 of 2024

¶59

15.10.2024

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 7 of 7_

S.Pazhaniappan v. S.Kannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Pazhaniappan v. S.Kannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The United India Insurance Co. Vs Pappukannu

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Vs R.Nehru

The Branch Manager Vs Andichiammal

Branch Manager Vs Minor.Vinitha

The Divisional Manager Vs M.Shanthi

The Branch Manager, Vs Arasiya Begum