Palanimuthu Vs F.Jerome

Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / III Additional Sub Court, Trichy in M.C.O.P.No.262 of 2020 and enhance the award amount.

¶16

1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

C.M.A.(MD)No.758 of 2024

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Sakthivel for R2

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.262 of 2020 dated 24.11.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / III Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli.

¶21

The appellant / claimant, who was awarded with a compensation of Rs.7,76,985/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Five only) with interest at 7.5% per annum, for the disability sustained by her, consequent to an accident occurred on 27.12.2017, challenged the contributory negligence attributed to her at 15% and also the quantum of compensation awarded at by the Tribunal and thereby claimed enhancement of the same.

¶22

The case of the appellant is that on 27.12.2017 at about 03.30 p.m., in Trichy – Chennai National Highways Road at Palur, when the appellant was standing on the extreme western side mud portion for 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

C.M.A.(MD)No.758 of 2024

¶24

crossing the road from West to East direction towards Palur bus stop, a car bearing Registration No.TN-22-BF-6521, which came from South to North in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the appellant and as a result of which, the appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over her body and that therefore the car driver alone was responsible for the accident.

¶25

The defence of the second respondent is that the first respondent's vehicle was not at all involved in the accident, that the appellant's husband, who has given the FIR, has stated that an unidentified vehicle dashed against his wife, that the second respondent came to understand that there was a criminal conspiracy between the appellant, first respondent and the driver so as to facilitate the appellant to make a false claim for compensation against the second respondent and that since the first respondent's vehicle itself was not involved in the accident, the second respondent is not liable for the claim.

¶26

It is the specific case of the appellant that the jurisdictional

¶27

police, after registration of FIR, verified the CCTV footages available

¶28

3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

C.M.A.(MD)No.758 of 2024

¶30

nearby the accident spot and after proper investigation, identified the first respondent's vehicle was responsible for the accident.

¶31

It is pertinent to mention that during enquiry, the second respondent has taken a stand that the appellant, without noticing the vehicle, crossed the road and invited the accident and that therefore the appellant alone was at fault. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, in the FIR itself, the appellant's husband has stated that his wife was crossing the road from West to East for the purpose of getting bus on the other side and that he was following his wife at that time.

¶32

P.W.2-occurrence witness in chief examination itself would

¶33

say“... ehDk;> godpKj;J> godpKj;J fzth; eluh[d; kw;Wk; kw;w cwtpdh;fSld; khiy Rkhh; 3.30 kzpastpy; gSh; NgUe;J epWj;jj;jpw;F nry;tjw;fhf jpUr;rp – nrd;id Njrpa neLQ;rhiyapy; Nkw;fpy; ,Ue;J fpof;F Nehf;fp nrd;W NgUe;J VWtjw;fhf Nuhl;il fle;J nry;Ytjw;fhf ehq;fs; Nuhl;il fle;j

¶34

NghJ vdf;F Kd;dhy; nrd;W nfhz;bUe;j godpKj;J kPJ njw;fpypUe;J tlf;F Nehf;fp mjpNtfkhfTk;> m[hf;fpuijahfTk;

¶35

4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

C.M.A.(MD)No.758 of 2024

¶37

`hud; mbf;fhkYk; te;j... ”

¶38

In cross-examination, she would say,“... ehq;fs; gOh; NgUe;J

¶39

epWj;jj;jpy; vq;fs; CUf;F nry;y g]; Vw nrd;Nwhk;. Nkw;gb NgUe;J epWj;jkhdJ Nuhl;bd; fpoGwj;jpy; cs;sJ vd;why; rupjhd;. vq;fs; ehd;F Ngupy; godpKj;J Kjypy; nrd;whh;. mtUf;F gpd;dhy; Rkhh; 5 mb J}uj;jpy; ehq;fs; nrd;Nwhk;> ehq;fs; midtUk; Nuhl;bd; Nkw;fpypUe;J fpof;fhf ele;J nrd;W nfhz;bUe;Njhk;. Nuhl;bd; Nky;Gwj;jpy; cs;s ,U topr;rhiyapy; Nky;Gwj;jpy; tpgj;J ele;jJ. .... kDjhuh; jtpu ehq;fs; %d;W NgUk;

¶40

Nky;Gwj;jpy; epd;Wtpl;Nlhk; vd;why; rupjhd;. kDjhuh; kl;LNk fpof;F jpiria Nehf;fp nrd;W nfhz;bUe;jhh;.....”

¶41

It is pertinent to note that the second respondent has neither filed

¶42

any appeal nor filed cross objection challenging the finding of the Tribunal with respect to the liability aspect. Considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant at 15% and as such, the same cannot be found fault with.

¶43

Now turning to the compensation, the medical board, upon

¶44

5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

C.M.A.(MD)No.758 of 2024

¶46

examining the appellant, has observed that (1) the appellant had fracture forearm right plat fixation, right femur plate and screw fixation and (2) left leg plate and screw fixation and fixed the permanent disability at 35%.

¶47

Though the appellant has alleged that she was doing coolie work and was getting Rs.9,000/- as monthly income, she has not chosen to produce any evidence. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.7,000/-.

¶48

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has failed to add any amount towards future prospects. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would also fairly concede the same.

¶49

The Tribunal, considering the medical evidence, has fixed the age of the appellant as 42 years at the time of accident. But the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant was born in the year 1979 as evident from Aadhar Card and that her age was shown as 38 years in the claim petition itself. Considering the above, this Court fixes the age of the appellant as 38 years at the time of accident. As

¶50

6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

C.M.A.(MD)No.758 of 2024

¶52

per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, 40% of the income is added for future prospects, making her monthly income Rs.9,800/- (Rs.7,000/- + Rs.2,800/- (40% of the income)). As rightly contended by the learned counsel on either side, the Tribunal has taken the multiplier as 14 instead of 15. Considering the above, the loss of income is calculated as Rs.6,17,400/- (Rs.9,800/- x 12 x 15 x 35%).

¶53

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the amount awarded under the other heads are on lesser side and the same is liable to be enhanced.

¶54

Considering the nature of injuries, consequent disability sustained, period of inpatient treatment and other attending circumstances, awarding of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.3,000/- for damages to clothing and articles are reasonable but awarding of Rs.10,000/- for extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/for transportation and Rs.7,000/- for attendant charges are definitely on lesser side and hence, the same are enhanced to Rs.25,000/-, Rs.10,000/and Rs.20,000/- respectively.

¶55

7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

C.M.A.(MD)No.758 of 2024

¶57

The Tribunal, taking note of the medical bills, has rightly

¶58

awarded Rs.4,02,500/- towards medical expenses.

¶59

Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for future medical expenses, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, there is absolutely no evidence in this regard. In the absence of any evidence, the question of granting any amount towards future medical expenses does not arise. Considering the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:-

¶60

S. No.	Description	Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs.)	Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.)	Award confirmed or enhanced or granted or reduced
1.	Loss of income	4,11,600	6,17,400	Enhanced
2.	Pain and suffering	50,000	50,000	Confirmed
3.	Loss of amenities	25,000	25,000	Confirmed
4.	Medical expenses	4,02,500	4,02,500	Confirmed
5.	Extra nourishment	10,000	25,000	Enhanced
6.	Transportation	5,000	10,000	Enhanced
7.	Attendant charges	7,000	20,000	Enhanced
8.	Damage to clothing and articles	3,000	3,000	Confirmed

¶61

8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

C.M.A.(MD)No.758 of 2024

¶63

Total 9,14,100 11,52,900^{Enhanced by} Rs.2,38,800/-

¶64

Hence, this Court concludes that the appellant is entitled to get 85% of the total compensation amount i.e., Rs.9,79,965/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Five only) with interest at 7.5% per annum.

¶65

Considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court further decides that the parties are to be directed to bear their own costs.

¶66

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the second respondent is directed to deposit the modified enhanced amount of Rs.9,79,965/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Five only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization excluding the default period to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.262 of 2020 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / III Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, after deducting the amount already deposited if any, within a period of four

¶67

9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

C.M.A.(MD)No.758 of 2024

¶69

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest and costs, less amount already withdrawn, if any, on due application before the Tribunal. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. The appellant is directed to pay the court fee for the enhanced compensation, if any, and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the payment of Court fee.

¶70

29.08.2025

¶71

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No csm

¶72

To:

¶73