Madras High Court
Shankar vs Ramachandran.R on 3 December, 2021
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
CMA.No.1255 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CMA No.1255 of 2020
Shankar ... Appellant
Vs
1.Ramachandran.R
2.The Branch Manager,
M/s.Cholamandalam MS General,
Insurance Company Ltd.,
100 Feet Road (opp. to MPL Ford),
Mudaliarpet, Puducherry-4. ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award dated 09.01.2020 in
M.A.C.T.O.P. No.233 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal at Puducherry, in so far as it relates to the quantum of
compensation.
For Appellant : Ms.Janani
For Respondents : Ms.S.R.Sree Vidhya (for R2)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1255 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The claimant is on appeal terming the compensation of Rs.2,27,200/- awarded to him for the injury suffered in a motor accident that occurred on 17.09.2014 as meagre.
2.According to the claimant, while he was riding a two wheeler from Puducherry to Villupuram on the extreme left side of the road, a load carrier vehicle bearing Registration No.PY01-BY-3849 coming in the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligence manner, dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle, as a result, the petitioner was thrown out of the vehicle and he suffered Degloving Injury over dorsum of right side foot till bone depth; Laceration over the right knee about 07x08 cms extending to bone depth and; the Metatorsal fracture for the 2nd and 3rd fingers of the right foot. He was admitted as inpatient on 17.09.2014 and was discharged on 09.10.2014. The claim had assessed the compensation payable to him at Rs.49,10,500/-.
3.The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company contending that the accident did not occurred in the manner suggested by the claimant. There was a delay in filing the police complaint. The claim made was 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1255 of 2020 termed as highly excessive. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence held that the driver of the goods vehicle bearing registration No.PY01-BY-3849 was responsible for the accident and that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal assessed the quantum of compensation under various heads as follows:
S.No. Heads Amount
Rs.
1 Pain and Sufferings 50,000
2 Medical expenses 30,000
3 Future Medical expenses 10,000
4 Loss of comfort and basic amenities 10,000
5 Rich and nutritious food 10,000
6 Transport expenses 6,200
7 Attender charges 33,000
8 Loss of income 42,000
9 Permanent Disability 36,000
Total 2,27,200
4.The Tribunal also found that the claimant had produced forged bills for physiotherapy and they were rejected.
5.I have heard Ms.Janani, learned counsel appearing for the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1255 of 2020 appellant and Ms.S.R.Sree Vidhya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6.Ms.Janani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding only a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards permanent disability. The Tribunal should have adopted the multiplier method instead of percentage method in assessing the compensation for permanent disability. She would also termed the award of Rs.10,000/- for future medical expenses as meagre.
7.I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
8.The nature of injuries suffered do not justify the claim. The fractures which can be called as grievous injuries or injuries which could result in permanent disability are only Metatorsal fractures on the the 2nd and 3rd toe on the right leg. These are not very serious injuries and they will not result in any permanent disablement, leave alone functional disablement. However, in view of the assessment of permanent disability at 12% by the medical personnel, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.36,000/- (12% X Rs.3000/-). I do not see any reason to interfere with the 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1255 of 2020 award of the Tribunal. As regards future medical expenses also, the award of Rs.10,000/- would be more than sufficient as there is very remote possibility of any future medical expense on the nature of injuries. In fact, I find that the award for attendant charges and loss of income are on the higher side. However, since the Insurance Company has not filed an appeal challenging the same, the award is left undisturbed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
03.12.2021 vs Index: No Speaking order To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.1255 of 2020 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
vs CMA No.1255 of 2020 03.12.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis