Madras High Court
M.Prakash Kumar vs Rakesh Kumar on 4 March, 2020
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
C.M.A.No.530 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-03-2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A. No.530 of 2016
M.Prakash Kumar .. Appellant/Petitioner
vs.
1.Rakesh Kumar
2.M/s.IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.26/195, 2nd Floor, North Usman Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
Now present address:
No.128, Habbibullah Road,
IFFCO Bhavan, 4th Floor,
T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017. .. Respondents/Respondents
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
25.06.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3645 of 2012 on the file of the learned III
Judge, Small Causes Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.530 of 2016
For Appellant : Mr.T.G.Ravichandrran
For Respondent-1 : Not Ready in Notice
For Respondent-2 : Mr.J.Michaelvisuvasam
JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
2. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 22.05.2011 at about 09.30 hours in the down side of the Gurusami Bridge from North to South direction at Chetpet, Chennai.
3. The petitioner was riding a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-01-AK-0102 as a pillion rider. On account of the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, more specifically, head injury, diffuse axonal injury and multiple injuries all over the body.
4. The claim petition was filed by the claimant, seeking 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.530 of 2016 compensation of Rs.18,30,000/-
5. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues and arrived a conclusion that the first respondent's two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-01-AK- 0102 was responsible for the accident.
6. As far as the policy coverage is concerned, the Tribunal found that the coverage is very much available and the claimant is entitled for compensation. Thus, the Tribunal found that the coverage is very much available and the claimant is entitled for compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded deciding the quantum of compensation.
7. PW-2 Dr.M.Saravana Bavanantham assessed the disability of 60% for the injuries sustained by the petitioner and deposed that head injury, loss of consciousness plus glass glow coma scale poor, confusion on neck and the post Traumatci Sequelae long with C.T. Brain Disarthria (His speech is not clearly punctuated slurred due to Brain Damage grade one) – 15%. PW-1 also deposed about the same difficulties. PW-2 has not given 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.530 of 2016 treatment to the petitioner and the Doctor also admits that the petitioner has undergone a Surgery. Keeping all these, the disability assessed by PW-2 is just and reasonable and acceptable one. Since the petitioner was aged 21 years at the time of accident, Rs.2,000/- is awarded per percentage.
8. Relying on the said deposition of PW-2 Doctor, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that when the Doctor's assessment of disability was accepted by the Tribunal, while discussing the issues, the compensation was granted only for 50% disability and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error. This apart, the Tribunal has granted less compensation in various other heads, which required further enhancements.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ Insurance Company, disputed the contentions by stating that the Tribunal has rightly restricted the percentage of disability by taking the over all facts and circumstances and it is not necessary to strictly adopt the disability percentage provided by the Doctor. Thus mere reduction of 10% would not be a ground to grant the enhancement of compensation. 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.530 of 2016
10. This apart, with reference to all other aspects, the Tribunal has adopted reasonable approach keeping in mind that the claimant was a student at the time of accident and he was studying B.Com., in D.G.Vaishnav College, Chennai. Thus, the appeal is to be dismissed.
11. This Court is of the considered opinion that perusal of the findings with reference to the deposition of PW-2, it is unambiguous that the Tribunal arrived a finding that the disability assessed by the PW-2 Doctor is just and reasonable and acceptable one. When such a finding is arrived and when there is no reason whatsoever to reduce the percentage of disability from 60% to 50%, the nature of the injuries as well as the treatments taken are also concern in this regard.
12. The claimant was admitted in the hospital and treated as an inpatient for about 32 days and the injury is a head injury and the learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has discontinued his education, which resulted huge loss not only monetarily but also in his career and all future prospects. 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.530 of 2016
13. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal in MCOP No.3645 of 2012 dated 25.06.2015 is modified and the enhanced compensation of Rs.10,26,270/- is awarded as per the details given below:-
Rs.
Future Prospects 1,00,000/-
(including social and marital
amenities)
Transport to Hospital 20,000/-
Extra Nourishment 25,000/-
Damage to Clothing 500/-
Medical Expenses 5,25,770/-
Attender Charges 25,000/-
Loss of Amenities 50,000/-
Pain and Sufferings 1,00,000/-
Disability of 60% at Rs.3,000/-
per percentage 1,80,000/-
---------------
10,26,270/-
=========
Thus, the total amount of compensation payable to the claimant comes to Rs.10,26,270/-.
6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.530 of 2016
14. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent/Insurance Company that the award amount had already been deposited. Thus, the second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the said amount with interest by filing an appropriate application and the payments are to be made only through RTGS. The appellant/claimant is liable to pay the additional court fee for the enhanced compensation.
15. Accordingly, C.M.A. No.530 of 2016 stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
04-03-2020 Index : Yes/No. Internet: Yes/No. Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Svn 7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.530 of 2016 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn To The III Judge, Small Causes Court-cum-
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
CMA No.530 of 2016
04-03-2020 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in