Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

R Mohan vs P Santhoshraj And Others

Madras High Court|02 March, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.838 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accident Tribunal Claims (Additional Fast Track Court V), Chennai is the appellant herein and he filed the above petition, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident on 28.07.2008. The first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was insured with the second respondent.
2. The accident occurred on 28.07.2008. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/-. Admittedly, the vehicle involved at the time of accident was insured with the second respondent. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head pain and suffering and it allowed Rs.55,000/- under the head purchase of nutritious food and attendar charges and medical expenses. It allowed Rs.45,000/- towards partial permanent disability. Thus Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under distinct heads such as transport to hospital, medical expenses, loss of amenities, compensation for pain and suffering and permanent disability.
4. The claimant suffered Grade-II compound segmental fracture left both bones middle third, distal third & upper third, middle third left tibia. He was inpatient in Sri Devi Hospital. It is seen that he was admitted to hospital on 28.07.2008 and he was discharged from hospital on 01.08.2008. PW2 Doctor gave evidence that the claimant suffered 40% of partial permanent disability. He has also given evidence stating that the movement of left knee is restricted upto 90º. However, the Tribunal fixed the partial permanent disability as 30% and awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards partial permanent disability.
5. I have carefully gone through the materials on record. As already pointed out, the petitioner suffered 40% partial permanent disability at the age of 38. He is a Civil Sub Contractor. Considering the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the compensation has to be re-assessed according to the present day cost of living and the inflation fact is also to be taken into account. Hence the compensation is re-assessed as follows:-
N.AUTHINATHAN.J.,
dpq
6. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.
7. In the above circumstances, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the claimant/appellant to withdraw the compensation amount with interest, as fixed by this Court, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order. The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the necessary Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount.
8. In the result, the above appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.
02.03.2017 dpq Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Vth Fast Track Court) , Chennai
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.1772 of 2012
N.AUTHINATHAN, J.,
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is posted today under the caption “ for being mentioned”, at the instance of the learned counsel for the second respondent/ Insurance Company.
2. The learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle, as per the award passed by the Tribunal. However, it is omitted to be mentioned in the order passed by this court and that therefore, he prayed for modification of the operative portion of the judgment to that effect.
3. I have perused the records. I am satisfied that the omission pointed out by the Insurance Company is only an accidental omission. Therefore, I am inclined to correct the omission.
3. In view of the above, paragraph No. 7 of the judgment dated 02.03.2017 passed in C.M.A.No.1772 of 2012 is modified as follows:-
“ 7. In the above circumstances, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent / Insurance Company is also entitled to recover the above compensation amount, by filing Executive Petition,from the N.AUTHINATHAN, J., mst owner of the vehicle. It is open to the claimant/appellant to withdraw the compensation amount with interest, as fixed by this court, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order. The appellant/ claimant is directed to pay the necessary court fee for the enhanced compensation amount.”
4. In other respects, the earlier judgment dated 02.03.2017 passed in CMA No.1772 of 2012, shall stand unaltered.
04.01.2018 mst Note: Registry is directed to issue a fresh judgment copy, after making necessary corrections.
C.M.A.No.1772 of 2012
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

R Mohan vs P Santhoshraj And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
02 March, 2017
Judges
  • N Authinathan