Madras High Court
P.S.Anand vs M/S.Maruti Circuits Pvt. Ltd on 8 August, 2019
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah, R.Pongiappan
C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on : 03.03.2020
Judgment Delivered on : 04.06.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020
P.S.Anand .. Appellant in C.M.A.No.256 of 2020
1. S.Sumathy
2. Anirudh A Sriram
3. A.Ramanujam .. Appellants in C.M.A.No.257 of 2020
Vs.
1. M/s.Maruti Circuits Pvt. Ltd.,
No.16/19, Subramaniam Nagar,
Rengarajapauram 2nd Street,
Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.
2. M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
4th Floor, Prince Towers,
No.25/26, College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 026. .. Respondents in both C.M.As.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.256 of 2020 filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree dated 08.08.2019
passed in M.C.O.P.No.3732 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Vth Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
Page 1/25
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.257 of 2020 filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree dated 08.08.2019
passed in M.C.O.P.No.3731 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Vth Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
For appellant in both the C.M.As. : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan for Mr.A.Babu
For respondents in both the C.M.As. : Mr.S.Arun Kumar for R-2
JUDGMENT
R.SUBBIAH, J Aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Vth Court of Small Causes), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.3731 of 2011, for a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/- as against the claim of Rs.57,25,000/-, the legal heirs of one Sriram, who had died in the accident that had occurred on 23.04.2011, have filed C.M.A.No.257 of 2020.
2. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.3732 of 2011 at Rs.5,25,000/- as against the claim of Rs.45 lakhs, C.M.A.No.256 of 2020 has been filed by the claimant, who is the injured victim in the same accident.
Page 2/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020
3. C.M.A.No.257 of 2020:
(i) This appeal relates to M.C.O.P.No.3731 of 2011. The deceased in this case is one A.R.Sriram. The first appellant is the wife of the deceased. The second appellant is the son of the deceased. The third appellant is the father of the deceased. On 23.04.2011, the deceased A.R.Sriram and the appellant in C.M.A.No.256 of 2020, i.e. the injured victim, along with 5 others, (totally seven persons), travelled together in a car bearing Registration No.TN-09-BH-
0397 and were proceeding from Bangalore to Mangalore on the NH.48 National Highways. While so proceeding, near Soorapan Halli Gate, Tippa Chandra, Magadi Taluk, Rama Nagara District, Karnataka, the said car hit on the centre median due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. In the said accident, all the persons who travelled in the car, sustained grievous injuries. Out of seven persons, four persons died, including the deceased Sriram and three persons, including the appellant in C.M.A.No.256 of 2020, had sustained injuries.
(ii) The legal heirs of the three persons out of four persons who died, have filed M.C.O.P.Nos.3729, 3730 and 3731 of 2011. Out of three injured persons, two filed M.C.O.P.No.3732 and 3733 of 2011. All the above claim Page 3/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 petitions were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Vth Assistant Small Causes Court), Chennai.
(iii) While so, for the death of one Dr.Selva Ganapathy, who had died in the same accident, his legal heirs filed M.C.O.P.No.2959 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. In the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Dr.Selva Ganapathy before the Tribunal, the name of the driver of the vehicle was mentioned as A.R.Sriram, who is the husband of the first appellant in C.M.A.No.257 of 2020.
(iv) In all the other claim petitions filed before the Tribunal/V Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the name of the driver of the car at the time of accident was mentioned as Ramesh, who had also travelled in the car, but had not filed any claim petition, as he sustained only minor injury.
(v) The Insurance Company has filed counter statement in the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased A.R.Sriram stating that at the time of the accident, the car was driven by Sriram, who was the tort-feasor, and others were only occupants. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Sriram, and thus, the Page 4/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Sriram in M.C.O.P.No.3731 of 2011.
(vi) The Tribunal had conducted joint trial in respect of the three fatal cases and two injured victim cases. In order to prove their case, on the side of the appellants/claimants, the wife of the deceased Sriram, was examined as P.W.3, and she has stated in her evidence that at the time of accident, the deceased Sriram was travelling on the rear seat of the car. The injured claimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.3732 and 3733 of 2011 were examined as P.Ws.4 and 5 respectively. They have stated in their evidence that at the time of accident, the car was driven by Ramesh.
(vii) On the side of the second respondent/Insurance Company, in order to prove their defence that, at the time of accident, the car was driven by the deceased A.R.Sriram and not by Ramesh, they have examined the Assistant Manager of the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, through whom the copy of the claim petition filed in M.C.O.P.No.2959 of 2011 by the legal heirs of the deceased Dr.Selva Ganapathy, was marked as Ex.R-2 and copy of the award passed by the Lok Adalat in the said claim petition, was marked as Ex.R-3.
Page 5/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020
(viii) That apart, the Court had also summoned one Gangadhar, Sub- Inspector of Police of Gudoor Police Station and examined him as C.W.3. Further , one Ravi, Inspector of Police, Gudoor Police Station was examined as C.W.4, through whom, the closure report was marked as Ex.C-12.
(ix) Apart from that, the said Ramesh himself filed an affidavit before the Tribunal stating that he was the driver of the car at the time of accident and fearing the number of victims who suffered death/injury due to his rash and negligent driving, he has given Ex.P-14 FIR falsely stating that Sriram was the driver of the car at the time of accident.
(x) Further, the complaint Ex.P-15 was sent by the wife of the deceased Sriram, i.e. the first appellant, to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, stating that her husband's name was wrongly entered in the FIR as the driver of the car and actually, the driver is only Ramesh and she has approached the Commissioner of Police to take action.
(xi) The Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, observed that at the time of accident, the car was driven only by Sriram and not Ramesh, and since the deceased himself was a tort-feasor, the legal heirs are not entitled for compensation, however, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Page 6/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 Rs.50,000/- under "no fault liability" as against the claim of Rs.57,25,000/-. Hence, the LRs. of the deceased A.R.Sriram have filed the present appeal in C.M.A.No.257 of 2020 as against the award dated 08.08.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3731 of 2011.
(xii) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that, except the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Dr.Selva Ganapathy, in all the other claim petitions, the name of the driver of the car in question was shown only as Ramesh. But the Tribunal, by placing reliance on the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Dr.Selva Ganapathy as well as the FIR marked as Ex.P-14 and also the closure report filed through C.W.4 as Ex.C-12, held that at the time of accident, the car was driven by Sriram and since he is the tort-feasor, his legal heirs are not entitled for compensation and thus, awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation under "no fault liability". The said finding was arrived at by the Tribunal ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, besides Ex.P-15 / Ex.C-13.
(xiii) That apart, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that P.W.5, who is one of the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.3733 of 2011, had categorically stated that, at the time of accident, the deceased Sriram was Page 7/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 seated in the rear seat with them and was travelling in the car and the said Ramesh was driving the car. P.Ws.4 and 5 have also suffered injuries along with Sriram and unfortunately, the said Sriram succumbed, though P.Ws.4 and 5 survived. P.Ws.4 and 5, who are the claimants in the other M.C.O.Ps., underwent intensive treatment in Bangalore and after they survived, they came back to Chennai to expose Ramesh as the driver. Moreover, the widow of the deceased Sriram, P.W.3 had sent letter to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore to treat the said letter as complaint and to take action against Ramesh and the said complaint had been marked as Ex.P-15 / Ex.C-13. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 (eye-witnesses) corroborates the contents of Ex.P-15. That apart, Ramesh himself has filed an affidavit stating that he was the driver at the time of accident and fearing the number of victims who suffered death/injury due to his rash and negligent driving, he has given the FIR falsely stating that Sriram was the driver of the car at the time of accident. But, the Tribunal has grossly erred in relying upon the FIR lodged by the said Ramesh to come to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the car was driven by Sriram ignoring the fact that the said Ramesh himself has filed an affidavit before the Tribunal that he was driving the car at the time of accident. Page 8/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020
(xiv) The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further submitted that there is strong evidence in their favour that Sriram was only a passenger and due to rash and negligent driving of Ramesh, the said Sriram lost his life. The Tribunal had committed grave error in discarding the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and the complaint Ex.P-15 sent by the wife of the deceased Sriram to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore.
(xv) Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that though there is overwhelming evidence that the car was driven only by Ramesh, the Tribunal has erroneously held that the car was driven by A.R.Sriram, who is the husband of the first appellant, and therefore, as he is a tort-feasor, his legal heirs are not entitled to compensation. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that by setting aside the said finding, the compensation has to be accordingly awarded to the appellants/claimants of the deceased Sriram, taking into consideration the fact that Ramesh was the driver.
(xvi) Countering the above submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that in the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of one of the occupants, namely Dr.Selva Page 9/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 Ganatpahy, in M.C.O.P.No.2959 of 2011, it is stated that the deceased A.R.Sriram was the driver in-charge of the vehicle at the time of accident. Further, in order to get compensation one way or the other from the Insurance Company, the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.3731 of 2011 relating to C.M.A.No.257 of 2020, have joined hands with the owner/insured of the vehicle and have come forward with a case, as if, at the time of accident, the car was driven by Ramesh, and that Sriram was travelling only as a passenger. Though the said Ramesh has filed an affidavit in the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Sriram, stating that only in order to escape from legal action, he had lodged the complaint by falsely stating that at the time of accident, the car was driven by Sriram and he has not come forward to adduce evidence before the Tribunal. Similarly, no other independent witness was examined on the side of the claimants to prove that the car was driven only by Ramesh and not Sriram. The Inspector of Police who was in-charge of final investigation, was examined as C.W.4, who had categorically stated that the complaint was lodged by Ramesh stating that A.R.Sriram was the driver of the vehicle and since he died in the accident, the final report has been filed on 20.07.2011 as charge abated. Further, the Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as Page 10/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 R.W.1 and he had marked the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of one of the occupants Dr.Selva Ganapathy in M.C.O.P.No.2959 of 2011, wherein they have categorically affirmed that A.R.Sriram was the driver at the time of accident and due to his negligent driving, the accident had occurred. The compromise recorded before the Lok Adalat between the legal heirs of Dr.Selva Ganapathy and the Insurance Company was also marked as Ex.R-3. The Tribunal, by relying upon the evidence of C.W.4 (Inspector of Police of final investigation) and Ex.P-10 FIR, had given a specific finding that the driver of the car in question was only Sriram and not Ramesh and thus, the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that such a well considered finding need not be interfered with.
(xvii) In the above context, the learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC) (The Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Meena Variyal and others).
(xviii) By relying upon the principle enunciated in the above decision of the Supreme Court, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- Insurance Company submitted that in the instant case, when the Page 11/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 appellants/claimants say that it is the said Ramesh who was driving the vehicle in question, they ought to have impleaded him as a party in the appeal, but they have not done so. Thus, the appellants have miserably failed to prove the contents of the FIR as incorrect. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the findings rendered by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with and thus, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
(xix) Keeping the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have carefully perused the entire materials available on record.
(xx) It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased A.R.Sriram was travelling only as an occupant and the car was driven by Ramesh. But the Tribunal erroneously came to the conclusion that the deceased Sriram was a tort-feasor and as such, the legal representatives of the deceased Sriram are not entitled for the compensation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied on the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 who have travelled as occupants in the car. They have stated in their evidence that the car was Page 12/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 driven by Ramesh at the time of accident. That apart, the learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the claim petitions filed by the other claimants, wherein the claimants have stated that the driver of the car was Ramesh. The learned counsel also relied upon the complaint (Ex.P-15) sent by the wife of the deceased A.R.Sriram to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore on 11.05.2011, in which also, it is stated that on the date of accident, her husband Sriram and others were travelling in the car driven by Ramesh. The FIR has been registered wrongly, as if the first appellant/first claimant's husband Sriram was driving the vehicle. Thus, in the said compliant, the wife of the deceased Sriram requested the Commissioner of Police to take action based on her complaint. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 and the name of the driver found in the other claim petitions and the complaint sent to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, would clearly show that at the time of accident, the car was driven only by Ramesh and not A.R.Sriram and the husband of the first appellant, namely Sriram, was travelling only as an occupant. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that based on the above evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 and the other related documentary evidence and the claim petitions filed by the other Page 13/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 claimants, wherein the name of the driver of the car was shown as Ramesh, the findings rendered by the Tribunal has to be set aside and consequently, the negligence for the accident has to be fixed on the part of Ramesh and the compensation has to be calculated and the Insurance Company has to be directed to pay the compensation amount indemnifying the owner of the vehicle.
(xxi) Whereas, in order to prove that at the time of accident, the car was driven only by Sriram, C.W.3 Sub-Inspector of Police was examined to show that the driver of the car was only Sriram. Apart from the Ex.P-14 FIR, C.W.4 Inspector of Police had categorically stated in his evidence that since the driver of the car, namely Sriram had died in the accident, they have filed final report as charge abated. It is pertinent to note that the final report was not challenged by the legal heirs of the deceased Sriram by initiating appropriate legal proceedings. Though it has been stated by the wife of the deceased Sriram that she has sent another complaint to the Commissioner of Police stating that in the FIR, her husband's name was wrongly mentioned as the driver of the car, but after sending the complaint, she has not taken any follow-up action. Under such circumstances, this Court cannot give any significance to Ex.P-15 complaint. Page 14/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 (xxii) Though in the affidavit filed by Ramesh before the Tribunal, it is stated that at the time of accident, he was the person who was driving the car, the claimants have not chosen to examine him as a witness before the Court, and therefore, no significance could be attached to the said affidavit also. Further, the claimants have also not taken efforts to implead the said Ramesh in the claim petition.
(xxiii) In the above context, it is useful to refer the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent- Insurance Company, reported in 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC) (The Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Meena Variyal and others), wherein it is held as follows in paragraph 9:
"9. Before we proceed to consider the main aspect arising for decision in this Appeal, we would like to make certain general observations. It may be true that the Motor Vehicles Act, insofar as it relates to claims for compensation arising out of accidents, is a beneficient piece of legislation. It may also be true that subject to the rules made in that behalf, the Tribunal may follow a summary procedure in dealing with a claim. That does not mean that a Tribunal approached with a claim for compensation under the Act should ignore all basic principles of law in determining the claim for compensation. Ordinarily, a contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity. When a car belonging to an owner is Page 15/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 insured with the insurance company and it is being driven by a driver employed by the insured, when it meets with an accident, the primary liability under law for payment of compensation is that of the driver. Once the driver is liable, the owner of the vehicle becomes vicariously liable for payment of compensation. It is this vicarious liability of the owner that is indemnified by the insurance company. A third party for whose benefit the insurance is taken, is therefore entitled to show, when he moves under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, that the driver was negligent in driving the vehicle resulting in the accident; that the owner was vicariously liable and that the insurance company was bound to indemnity the owner and consequently, satisfy the award made. Therefore, under general principles, one would expect the driver to be impleaded before an adjudication is claimed under Section 166 of the Act as to whether a claimant before the Tribunal is entitled to compensation for an accident that has occurred due to alleged negligence of the driver. Why should not a Tribunal insist on the driver of the vehicle being impleaded when a claim is being filed? As we have noticed, the relevant provisions of the Act are not intended to jettison all principles of law relating to a claim for compensation which is still based on a tortious liability. The Tribunal ought to have, in the case on hand, directed the claimant to implead Mahmood Hasan who was allegedly driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Here, there was also controversy whether it was Mahmood Hasan who was driving the vehicle or it was the deceased himself. Surely, such a question could have been decided only in the presence of Mahmood Hasan who would have been principally liable for any Page 16/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 compensation that might be decreed in case he was driving the vehicle. ... ... "
(xxiv) When it is the specific case of the claimants that the driver of the car at the time of accident was only Ramesh and not Sriram, they ought to have impleaded him as a party-respondent in the claim petition. But they have failed to do so. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the evidence on record would clearly go to show that at the time of accident, the car was driven by Sriram and not Ramesh. Only in order to help the legal heirs, later, the said Ramesh has come forward with an affidavit stating that he was the driver at the time of accident and fearing the number of victims who suffered death/injury due to his rash and negligent driving, he has given the FIR Ex.P-14 falsely stating that Sriram was the driver of the car at the time of accident. The Tribunal has correctly rejected the same and held that the car was driven by Sriram and thereby, awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/- under "no fault liability". Such well considered finding needs no interference by this Court.
(xxv) In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings rendered by the Tribunal. Hence, by confirming the impugned award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.3731 of 2011, the Page 17/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 appeal in C.M.A.No.257 of 2020 is dismissed. No costs.
4. C.M.A.No.256 of 2020:
(i) This appeal relates to M.C.O.P.No.3732 of 2011. So far as this appeal is concerned, the appellant/claimant is an injured victim, who was travelling as an occupant in the car. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the accident, the appellant/claimant has sustained the following injuries as extracted by the Tribunal:
"Ex.P-22 is the copy of discharge summary issued by Mathrushree Hospital and it reports as follows: DOA: 23.04.2011 DOD: 27.04.2011 Diagnosis:
Rupture of Urinary bladder c rupture with multiple R rib fracture c pelvic fracture & pubic Dialysis R SI disruption.
Ex.P-23 is the copy of the Second Discharge summary issued by the Apollo Hospital and it reports as follows:
DOA: 27.04.2011 DOD: 22.05.2011 Diagnosis: Polytrauma - open book injury pelvis - Symphsis publis Diastasis with right Sacroiliac joint disruption, multiple ribs fracture right side, Urethral injury.
Ex.P-24 is the Third Discharge summary issued by the Appollo Hospital and it reports as follows:
DOA:08.08.2011 DOS:11.08.2011
Page 18/25
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020
DOD:17.08.2011
Diagnosis: Urethra Distraction injury, Diabetes, Hypertension.
Ex.P-25 is the copy of the Fourth Discharge summary issued by the Apollo Hospital and it reports as follows:
DOA: 02.10.2011 DOS: 03.10.2011 DOD: 04.10.2011 Diagnosis: Status post progressive perineal Urethroplasty, SPVCC, Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension"
(ii) The Doctor who was examined as P.W.6, assessed the disability suffered by the appellant/victim as 90% partial permanent disability for the injuries sustained by the appellant. Though the Doctor has fixed 90% partial permanent disability, the Tribunal has fixed the disability at 70% and had chosen to award a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability, thereby, a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal towards the disability. The Tribunal had not adopted the multiplier method in arriving at the compensation towards disability. Now, the grievance of the appellant/claimant is that when the Doctor has assessed the disability at 90%, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier method and awarded appropriate compensation under the head "disability". Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted Page 19/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 that the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- for 70% disability as awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per percentage, is liable to be set aside and consequently, by applying the multiplier method, the amount awarded towards disability has to be enhanced.
(iii) Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that though the disability was assessed at 90%, absolutely there is no functional disability and in fact, even after recovery, the appellant/claimant is continuing his job (partnership business). Under such circumstances, there is no need to apply multiplier method and thus, the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company sought for confirmation of the award passed by the Tribunal.
(iv) Keeping in mind the above submissions, we have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record. We find, as contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company that, when the appellant/injured/claimant was continuing his job, the question of awarding the amount by applying the multiplier method, does not arise in this case. Therefore, we are not inclined to apply the multiplier method. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'disability' (70% x Rs.3,000/- per per Page 20/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 percentage) at Rs.2,10,000/- is hereby confirmed. Further, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal for transport and extra-nourishment at Rs.1 lakh, towards attender charges at Rs.13,200/- and for damages to clothes and articles at Rs.2,000/- are hereby confirmed. However, taking into consideration the sufferings undergone by the appellant/claimant, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head "loss of amenities" is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. Similarly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head "pain and sufferings" is also hereby enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, this Court fixes the compensation under the abovesaid heads as follows:
Heads under which the Amount (in Rs.) Amount (in Rs.) amounts are awarded awarded awarded by the Tribunal by this Court Pain and sufferings 1,00,000 2,00,000 Transport and extra- 1,00,000 1,00,000 nourishment Disability (70% x 3,000 per percentage) 2,10,000 2,10,000 Attender charges 13,200 13,200 Loss of amenities 1,00,000 2,00,000 Damages to clothes and articles 2,000 2,000 Total 5,25,200 7,25,200 Page 21/25 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020
(v) With the above modification in the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant in C.M.A.No.256 of 2020 is partly allowed. No costs. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.5,25,200/- to Rs.7,25,200/- (Rupees seven lakhs twenty five thousand and two hundred only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount, less, the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant in C.M.A.No.256 of 2020 is permitted to withdraw the entire amount in accordance with law. The appellants/claimants shall pay the necessary Court fee, if any on the said compensation. In other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered.
(R.P.S.J) (R.P.A.J)
04.06.2020
Index: Yes
Speaking Order: Yes
cs
Page 22/25
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020
To
1. The Presiding Officer,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Vth Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
2. M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, Prince Towers, No.25/26, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.Page 23/25
http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 R.SUBBIAH, J and R.PONGIAPPAN, J cs Pre-delivery Judgment in C.M.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2020 Page 24/25 http://www.judis.nic.in