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

Senthil Kumar vs Thangavel

Madras High Court|14 September, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, passed in M.C.O.P.No. 90 of 2015, dated 30.12.2015.
2. It is the case of an accident causing injury, which took place on 23.01.2011 at about 05.00 hours on Asoor by pass road near Vanaveli Muneeswarankoil.
3. It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that when the petitioner was riding his bullock cart on the extreme left side on Asoor by pass main road near Vanaveli Muneeswaran Koil, from east to west, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 28 AC 8287, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the bullock cart and as a result, the petitioner sustained severe and grievous injuries, subsequently, had taken treatment at various hospitals.
4. The claimant filed an application in M.C.O.P.No.90 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, seeking compensation.
5.Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant examined six witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked eleven documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On the side of the respondents, they did not let in any oral and documentary evidence.
6.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced on either side and also on appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN 28 AC 8287 and therefore directed the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,03,000/-to the claimants as compensation.
7. Against which, the appellant/claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/ Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal awarded a just and reasonable compensation and the same does not warrant interference.
9. This Court heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.3,000/- for 1% disability and Rs.25,000/- towards nutritious food and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be enhanced.
11. Since the disability of the petitioner was assessed at 28%, Rs.84,000/- (Rs.3,000/- for 1% accordingly Rs.3000 X 28 =Rs. 84,000) is awarded as compensation towards disability and Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards nutritious food. The compensation under other heads awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
12. This Court modifies the award of the Tribunal by enhancing the compensation as under:-
S.
No Description By Tribunal (Rs) By this Court (Rs) Result
1. Towards disability 56,000 84,000 Enhanced
2. Loss of income for 3 months 9,000 9,000 confirmed 3 For pain and sufferings 20,000 20,000 confirmed 4 Transportation Expenses 5,000 5,000 confirmed 5 Attendant charges 1,000 1,000 confirmed 6 For future expenses 10,000 10,000 confirmed 7 Damages to articles 2,000 2,000 confirmed Total 1,03,000 1,31,000 By enhancing Rs.28,000/-
13. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, by enhancing the award of the Tribunal from Rs.1,03,000/- (Rupees one lakh and three thousand only) to a sum of Rs.1,31,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty one thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation and proportionate costs;
(ii) The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, 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 is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, without filing any formal application before the Tribunal. No Costs.
To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam.
.
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

Senthil Kumar vs Thangavel

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
14 September, 2017