The Director of Medical and Rural HealthServices, Madras-6 v. Ponnusamy
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- MotorVehicles Act, 1988 s. 173
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is only a sum ofRs.12,000/-, which may appear to be excessive for the year 1996,but not as of now, that is in the year 2017. The compensationawarded is hardly adequate in the face of spiraling inflationand surge in…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT MADRASDATED 14.02.2017CORAMTHE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALAC.M.A. No.Sr.6128 of 1996andC.M.P.No.7988 of 1996The Director of Medical and Rural HealthServices, Madras-6....Petitioner/AppellantversusPonnusamy...Respondent/RespondentAppeal sought to be filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated30.08.1994 made in M.C.O.P.No.293 of 1990 on the file of thelearned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. C.M.P.No.7988 of 1996is filed to condone the delay of 217 days in filing the CMA.SR.For appellant:Ms.JayasreeGovernment AdvocateFor Respondent:No appearanceO R D E RThe Director of Medical and Rural Health Services hasfiled this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, challenging the Judgmentand decree dated 30.08.1994 made in M.C.O.P.No.293 of 1990 onthe file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee which ispending in SR stage from the year 1996 onwards, i.e. exactlyfrom 24.04.1996.2. Despite pendency of appeal in SR stage for 21 years, nosteps have been taken to get it numbered. 3. Since this appeal is pending for 21 years at the SRstage, it is taken up for disposal at the SR stage itself. 4. In respect of the injuries due to the accident, that hadtaken place on 30.08.1994, the injured made a claim ofRs.,40,000/-. As against the claim made, the Tribunal hasawarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- as compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
#5. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is only a sum ofRs.12,000/-, which may appear to be excessive for the year 1996,but not as of now, that is in the year 2017. The compensationawarded is hardly adequate in the face of spiraling inflationand surge in cost of living. Inflation is naturallycompounding, and a relentless destroyer of the value of money. The same is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the case of Rathi Menon v. Union of India 2001 (2) KLT12: (2001 AIR SCW 1074), wherein it has been held that wheninjuries occurred due to accidental falling of a person, considering the value of money etc., compensation shall bepayable on the basis of rules prevailing at the time of makingthe final order for payment of compensation and not on the moneyvalue which prevailed on the date of accident. 6. In view of the same, the amount awarded by the Tribunalcannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, the CivilMiscellaneous Appeal at the SR stage itself is dismissed. Nocosts. C.M.P.No.7988 of 1996 is closed. -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy Sub-Assistant RegistrararrTo1. The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.(2 copies)C.M.A. No.Sr.6128 of 1996andC.M.P.No.7988 of 1996SR(CO)SP(13/04/2018)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
MotorVehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 29 Mar 2004. The bench was S VIMALAC.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.