This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to enhance the award amount passed in M.C.O.P.No.101 of 2007, dated 05.06.2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai. The appellant herein is the claimant and the respondents herein are the respondents in the original M.C.O.P. Petition. The case against the first respondent was dispensed with by the appellant's counsel.
2. Brief substance of the petition in M.C.O.P.No.101 of 2007 is as follows:-
On 07.07.2005, at about 07.45 pm., when the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-55-H-2054 along the Thirumayam – Pudukottai road, near Sivapuram Vellattru bridge a TATA Sumo, bearing Registration No.TN-50-M-9999 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler. The petitioner sustained injuries. He took first aid in Pudukottai Government Hospital, then, he was admitted in Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, from 07.07.2005 till 24.09.2005 as inpatient and his leg was amputated below the knee, he can walk only with the help of a stick. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- as compensation. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.497 of 2022
3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.101 of 2007, is as follows:-
The owner and the Insurance Company of the two wheeler are necessary parties to the case. The first respondent sold the vehicle to the second respondent. The second respondent is not a party to the Insurance contract. There is no necessity for the third respondent to indemnify the second respondent. The age, income, injuries and loss of income are to be proved.
4. Another case in M.C.O.P.No.100 of 2004 was filed before the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the rider of the two wheeler. In both the claim petitions, in MCOP.Nos100 of 2005 and 101 of 2005, a joint trial was conducted and a common judgment was pronounced by the Tribunal.
5. On the side of the claimants, 4 witnesses were examined and 15 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- as compensation for the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.101 of 2005.
6. Against the award amount, the appellant / claimant has filed this appeal, on the following grounds:-
3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.497 of 2022 The Tribunal failed to consider that the appellant is aged about 31 years and his right leg was amputated below the knee. The Doctor has fixed the disability at 77%, but the Tribunal fixed the disability only as 70%. For permanent disability, the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.2,10,000/- instead of Rs.1,40,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings and the same to be enhanced. The Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal failed to consider that the appellant was working as a wood cutter and was earning Rs.500/- per day and he took treatment as inpatient from 07.07.2005 till 24.09.2005, but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- for 80 days loss of income. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment and the same to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the right leg of the appellant was amputated up to the knee level and hence, the multiplier method has to be adopted and prayed the compensation to be enhanced. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.497 of 2022
8. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the Tribunal fixed the disability at 70% and for 70% disability, the Tribunal fixed Rs.1,40,000/- which is reasonable. The award under the other heads are all reasonable and prayed the appeal to be dismissed.
9. The evidence of the Doctor, reveals that the appellant could not stand without help and that it is difficult for him to work in a siting position also. The appellant's leg was amputated upto the knee level. In view of the evidence of the Doctor and in view of the medical reports, it is decided that the appellant is having functional disability and for the functional disability, the appellant is entitled for loss of income by applying multiplier method. The income of the injured was not proved through any records, hence, notional income during the year 2005 is fixed at Rs. 4,500/- per month. Considering the 70% disability, the monthly income is fixed as Rs.3,150/- (Rs.4,500/- X 70/100 = Rs.Rs.3,150/-). The age of the appellant is 31 years, at the time of accident. Hence, after applying multiplier '16' the loss of income is calculated as Rs.6,04,800/- (RS.3,150 X 12 X16 = Rs.6,04,800/-).
10. Since the loss of income is fixed by applying multiplier method, the appellant is not entitled to temporary loss of income. The appellant is entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.497 of 2022 Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment. In total the appellant is entitled to Rs.6,56,800/-. The compensation is calculated as follows:-
11. This Appeal is allowed. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,92,000/- to Rs.6,56,800/-.
(i) The claimant / appellant is entitled to Rs.6,56,800/- as compensation.
(ii) The third respondent - Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.6,56,800/- (less the amount already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and with costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the court fee for the enhanced compensation, if any, and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the payment of Court fee.
6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.497 of 2022
(iv) On such deposit being made by the Insurance Company, the appellant / claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, on filing of proper petition before the Tribunal, less any amount, if already withdrawn by him. The Claimant is not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any default. No costs.
01.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Ls
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID – 19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.497 of 2022 R. THARANI, J.
Ls To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Pre-delivery Judgment made in C.M.A.(MD)No.497 of 2022 01.09.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis