Madras High Court
S.Lalitha vs M/S.Lakshmi Brooke Coffee Hosts. Pvt. ... on 27 March, 2019
Author: V.M.Velumani
Bench: V.M.Velumani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.2004 of 2019
S.Lalitha .. Appellant
Vs.
1.M/s.Lakshmi Brooke Coffee Hosts. Pvt. Ltd.,
New No.46, 48th Street, Ashok Nagar,
Chennai 600 083.
(R1 was set exparte before the Tribunal)
2.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unit No.1, 3rd Floor,
No.23, Spur Tank Road,
Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 21.10.2011, made in
M.C.O.P.No.4151 of 2008, on the file of the II Court of Small Causes,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Arundattan
for M/s.C and K Law firm
For R2 : Ms.C.Harini
for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation granted http://www.judis.nic.in 2 by the Tribunal in the award dated 21.10.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.4151 of 2008, on the file of the II Court of Small Causes, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
2.By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3.The appellant/claimant filed M.C.O.P.No.4151 of 2008, on the file of the II Court of Small Causes, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 01.11.2008.
4.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the goods van belonging to the 1 st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,53,500/- as compensation to the appellant at the first instance and recover the same from the 1st respondent. Not being satisfied with the amounts granted by the award dated 21.10.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.4151 of 2008, the appellant/claimant has come out with the present appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant sustained fracture of left side of Ala of sacrum, fracture of anterior lip of both acetabulum, fracture of inferior pubic ramus of both pubic bone besides other severe injuries. The appellant took treatment in hospital as in-patient from 01.11.2008 to 19.11.2008. The Tribunal failed to grant any amount towards future medical expenses, loss of amenities and mental agony. P.W.2-Doctor has assessed 70% disability for the injuries sustained by the appellant and produced disability certificate and X-rays as Exs.P8 and P9 respectively. The Tribunal without considering the nature of injuries and the disability certificate produced by the Doctor, granted meagre sums towards extra nourishment, permanent disability, transportation and pain and suffering. The Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation under the head loss of earning power to the appellant. The total compensation granted by the Tribunal is very meagre and prayed for enhancement of the same.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that the Tribunal considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant and the disability certificate issued by P.W.2-Doctor, granted compensation, which is not meagre. The appellant has not made out http://www.judis.nic.in 4 any case for enhancement of the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent and perused the materials available on record.
8.From the materials on record, it is seen that the appellant has sustained fracture of left side of Ala of sacrum, fracture of anterior lip of both acetabulum, fracture of inferior pubic ramus of both pubic bone besides other severe injuries. The Tribunal has held that P.W.2-Doctor assessed disability for 2 parts as 30% and 40% and considering the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, reduced the percentage of disability to 50% on the ground that P.W.2-Doctor has deposed that the assessment of disability may vary by 5% from Doctor to Doctor. The Tribunal having held so, erroneously fixed the percentage of disability at 50%. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by appellant, the appellant is entitled to compensation for 65% disability at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per percentage. Hence, a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- [Rs.2,000/- x 65%] is granted towards permanent disability. The appellant has taken treatment as in-patient in hospital from 01.11.2008 to 19.11.2008. The appellant has also taken treatment as out-patient for the injuries suffered in the accident. The appellant is entitled to a sum of http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Rs.10,000/- towards attender charges. The Tribunal has granted a meagre sum towards loss of income. The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.27,000/- [Rs.4,500/- x 6] towards loss of income for a period of six months. The amounts granted by the Tribunal towards transportation and extra nourishment are very meagre. Hence, a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- are granted towards the said heads respectively. The Tribunal failed to grant any amount towards loss of amenities. A sum of Rs.20,000/- is granted towards the loss of amenities. The amounts granted by the Tribunal towards other heads are just and reasonable and the same are confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
S.No Description Amount Amount Award confirmed awarded by awarded by or enhanced or Tribunal this Court granted (Rs) (Rs)
1. Permanent 1,00,000/- 1,30,000/- Enhanced disability
2. Loss of income 13,500/- 27,000/- Enhanced
3. Transportation 1,000/- 5,000/- Enhanced
4. Extra 5,000/- 10,000/- Enhanced nourishment
5. Damage to 1,000/- 1,000/- Confirmed clothing
6. Medical expenses 8,000/- 8,000/- Confirmed
7. Pain and suffering 25,000/- 25,000/- Confirmed
8. Loss of amenities - 20,000/- granted
9. Attender charges - 10,000/- granted Total 1,53,500/- 2,36,000/- Enhanced by Rs.82,500/-
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 V.M.VELUMANI, J., gsa
9.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and award granted by the Tribunal at Rs.1,53,500/- is enhanced to Rs.2,36,000/- along with interest and costs. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount along with interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.4151 of 2008 at the first instance and recover the same from the 1st respondent. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn if any, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs.
27.03.2019 gsa To
1.The Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruchengode.
2.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.2004 of 2019 http://www.judis.nic.in