High Court · 2025

CMA.No.2 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24.02.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARCMA.No.2 of 2023Siddhan ... AppellantVs.1.Kumar2.Madhaiyan3.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,15A, BLA, Kanaga Towers,11th Cross, Thillai Nagar,Tiruchi. ... RespondentsCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the 20% contributory negligence fixed on the part of appellant and to enhance the compensation amount awarded in the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2021 made in MCOP.No.204 of 2018 on the file of MACT/IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Bhavani, by allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal with interest of 9% and cost.For Appellant : Mr.C.RamarajFor Respondents : Ms.G.Sukumari for R3 Notice dispensed with for R1 and R21/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023 J U D G M E N TAggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal fixing 20% contributory negligence on the appellant/claimant and also aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant has come before this Court.2. It is the case of the claimant that he was riding his TVS-XL bearing registration No.TN-36U-7310 on 20.04.2018. When the appellant was proceeding on the left side of Bhavani to Mettur Main Road in South to North direction near Manickampalayam Pirivu, the lorry belonging to the second respondent insured with the 3rd respondent was driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result of which, the lorry ran over claimant and he received injuries all over the body. It was claimed that the claimant was a load man and he earned Rs.25,000/- per month. Accordingly, the claim was laid by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 20233. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of the accident as averred by the appellant in his claim petition.4. It is the specific case of the 3rd respondent that the accident had occurred only due to the negligent driving of the claimant himself and hence, he sought for dismissal of the claim.5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as PW.1 and one Doctor was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the claimant, twenty five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P25. The authorisation letter issued to PW.2 by Ganga Hospital was marked as Ex.X1 and disability certificate issued by Ganga Hospital was marked as Ex.X2.6. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that primarily the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent. However, the Tribunal also held that the claimant contributed to the accident and fixed 20% of contributory negligence on his part. Taking into consideration the evidence available on 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,64,000/- as compensation for the claimant. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has come before this Court.7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the first respondent and the same is mentioned in Ex.P1-FIR. According to him, the Tribunal committed an error in fixation contributory negligence of 20% on the claimant. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount of Rs.5,000/- fixed by the Tribunal for each percentage of disability is very much on the lower side. He further submitted that the notional income of Rs.9,000/- fixed by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculating the loss of earning during treatment period is also on the lower side. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for each percentage of disability is also justifiable. 8. In order to prove the negligence of the claimant, he examined himself as PW.1 and the FIR was marked as Ex.P1 and the final 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023report was marked as Ex.P6. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the first respondent had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, he was primarily liable. However, based on Ex.P2-rough sketch, the Tribunal concluded that the accident had taken place on the right side of the road and therefore, the claimant also contributed to the accident. The claimant was examined as PW.1, in his evidence, he deposed as follows:“tpgj;J rkaj;jpy; ehd; rhiyapd; bjw;fpypUe;J tlf;F nehf;fpr;brd;nwd;/ bjw;fpypUe;J tlf;F nehf;fp bry;gth;fs; ,lJg[wkhf bry;yntz;Lk; vd;whYk;. nuhl;od; nkg[wkhf bry;yntz;Lk; vd;whYk; rhpjhd;/ tpgj;J rhiyapd; fpHg[wk; ele;jJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ yhhp vd; gpd;dhy; te;jJ. ehd; !;gpsz;lh; nkhl;lhh; irf;fpspy; nkhjtpy;iy/ rhiyapd; ,lJg[wkhf xJ';Jtjw;F vdf;F ve;j jila[k; ,y;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ nkg[wkhf ,Ue;J fpHg[wkhf bry;Yk;nghJ bjw;fpypUe;J tlf;F nehf;fp te;j yhhp nkhjpaJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 20239. A perusal of PW.1 evidence and the rough sketch marked as Ex.P2 would show that at the time of accident, the claimant crossed the median and came to the right side of the road. The claimant also contributed to the accident by not following the rules of road traffic that users of the road should keep left half of the road. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in fixing 20% of the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and that finding needs no interference.10. The Doctor who treated the claimant at Ganga Hospital was examined as PW.2 and through him disability certificate Ex.X2 was marked. A perusal of the same would suggest that the claimant suffered a permanent physical impairment of 68%. The disability suffered by the claimant has to be converted into whole body functioning disability. In the case on hand, it was claimed by the appellant that he was a load man at the time of accident. Taking into consideration the disability certificate issued by PW.2 and the discharge summary, the Tribunal reduced percentage of disability to 55% and the same was also appear to be reasonable. The accident had occurred in the year 2018 and hence the claimant is entitled 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023to Rs.7,000/- per percentage of disability. Accordingly, he is entitled to Rs.3,85,000/- (Rs.7,000x55=3,85,000/-) under the head of disability. The Tribunal fixed the notional income of Rs.9,000/- per month and awarded loss of income for eight months. Taking into consideration, the date of accident, this Court deems it appropriate to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/-. Therefore, the amount of Rs.72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the said head is increased to Rs.1,32,000/- (16,500x8=Rs.1,32,000/-).11. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head pain and suffering. The exhibits P9 and P13, discharge summaries produced by the claimant would indicate that he was in hospital from 21.04.2018 to 07.05.2018 and from 01.08.2019 to 06.08.2019. He suffered Degloving injury in his legs and the movement of his legs are affected. Taking into consideration all these facts, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head pain and suffering. Though the amount of Rs.75,000/- is said to be on the higher side, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head loss of amenities. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to disturb the said amount and the same is confirmed. Similarly, the 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023medical expenses, transportation to hospital, extra nourishment, damages to clothes, etc., are confirmed. 12. In the light of the above discussion, this Court modifies the award passed by the Tribunal as follows:S.NoDescriptionAmount awarded by Tribunal (Rs)Amount awarded by this Court(Rs)1.Pain and suffering75,000/-75,000/-2.Permanent disability2,75,000/-3,85,0003.Loss of earning72,000/-1,32,000/-4.Medical bills4,96,005/-4,96,005/-5.Transport to Hospital25,000/-25,000/-6.Extra nourishment10,000/-10,000/-7.Damages to Clothes and articles2,000/-2,000/-TotalRs.9,55,005/-Rs.11,25,005/-Less 20% contributory negligence Rs.1,91,001/-Rs.2,25,001/-Total7,64,004/-(Rounded off to Rs.7,64,000/-)9,00,004/-(Rounded off to Rs.9,00,000/-)8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023 In view of the discussion made earlier, the appellant is entitled to a sum of 11,25,005/- towards compensation, if 20% of the said amount is deducted under head of contributory negligence, the claimant is entitled to Rs.9,00,000/- . The appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% on the enhanced award. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of MCOP.No.204 of 2018 on the file of MACT/IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Bhavani. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by making formal application before the Tribunal.13. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.24.02.2025Index : Yes/NoSpeaking order:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/Noub 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023S.SOUNTHAR, J.ubTo1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Small Causes Court, Chennai.2.The Section OfficerVR Section, High Court, Madras.CMA.No.2 of 202310/11

CMA.No.2 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24.02.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARCMA.No.2 of 2023Siddhan ... AppellantVs.1.Kumar2.Madhaiyan3.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,15A, BLA, Kanaga Towers,11th Cross, Thillai Nagar,Tiruchi. ... RespondentsCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the 20% contributory negligence fixed on the part of appellant and to enhance the compensation amount awarded in the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2021 made in MCOP.No.204 of 2018 on the file of MACT/IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Bhavani, by allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal with interest of 9% and cost.For Appellant : Mr.C.RamarajFor Respondents : Ms.G.Sukumari for R3 Notice dispensed with for R1 and R21/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023 J U D G M E N TAggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal fixing 20% contributory negligence on the appellant/claimant and also aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant has come before this Court.2. It is the case of the claimant that he was riding his TVS-XL bearing registration No.TN-36U-7310 on 20.04.2018. When the appellant was proceeding on the left side of Bhavani to Mettur Main Road in South to North direction near Manickampalayam Pirivu, the lorry belonging to the second respondent insured with the 3rd respondent was driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result of which, the lorry ran over claimant and he received injuries all over the body. It was claimed that the claimant was a load man and he earned Rs.25,000/- per month. Accordingly, the claim was laid by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 20233. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of the accident as averred by the appellant in his claim petition.4. It is the specific case of the 3rd respondent that the accident had occurred only due to the negligent driving of the claimant himself and hence, he sought for dismissal of the claim.5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as PW.1 and one Doctor was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the claimant, twenty five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P25. The authorisation letter issued to PW.2 by Ganga Hospital was marked as Ex.X1 and disability certificate issued by Ganga Hospital was marked as Ex.X2.6. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that primarily the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent. However, the Tribunal also held that the claimant contributed to the accident and fixed 20% of contributory negligence on his part. Taking into consideration the evidence available on 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,64,000/- as compensation for the claimant. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has come before this Court.7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the first respondent and the same is mentioned in Ex.P1-FIR. According to him, the Tribunal committed an error in fixation contributory negligence of 20% on the claimant. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount of Rs.5,000/- fixed by the Tribunal for each percentage of disability is very much on the lower side. He further submitted that the notional income of Rs.9,000/- fixed by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculating the loss of earning during treatment period is also on the lower side. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for each percentage of disability is also justifiable. 8. In order to prove the negligence of the claimant, he examined himself as PW.1 and the FIR was marked as Ex.P1 and the final 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023report was marked as Ex.P6. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the first respondent had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, he was primarily liable. However, based on Ex.P2-rough sketch, the Tribunal concluded that the accident had taken place on the right side of the road and therefore, the claimant also contributed to the accident. The claimant was examined as PW.1, in his evidence, he deposed as follows:“tpgj;J rkaj;jpy; ehd; rhiyapd; bjw;fpypUe;J tlf;F nehf;fpr;brd;nwd;/ bjw;fpypUe;J tlf;F nehf;fp bry;gth;fs; ,lJg[wkhf bry;yntz;Lk; vd;whYk;. nuhl;od; nkg[wkhf bry;yntz;Lk; vd;whYk; rhpjhd;/ tpgj;J rhiyapd; fpHg[wk; ele;jJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ yhhp vd; gpd;dhy; te;jJ. ehd; !;gpsz;lh; nkhl;lhh; irf;fpspy; nkhjtpy;iy/ rhiyapd; ,lJg[wkhf xJ';Jtjw;F vdf;F ve;j jila[k; ,y;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ nkg[wkhf ,Ue;J fpHg[wkhf bry;Yk;nghJ bjw;fpypUe;J tlf;F nehf;fp te;j yhhp nkhjpaJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 20239. A perusal of PW.1 evidence and the rough sketch marked as Ex.P2 would show that at the time of accident, the claimant crossed the median and came to the right side of the road. The claimant also contributed to the accident by not following the rules of road traffic that users of the road should keep left half of the road. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in fixing 20% of the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and that finding needs no interference.10. The Doctor who treated the claimant at Ganga Hospital was examined as PW.2 and through him disability certificate Ex.X2 was marked. A perusal of the same would suggest that the claimant suffered a permanent physical impairment of 68%. The disability suffered by the claimant has to be converted into whole body functioning disability. In the case on hand, it was claimed by the appellant that he was a load man at the time of accident. Taking into consideration the disability certificate issued by PW.2 and the discharge summary, the Tribunal reduced percentage of disability to 55% and the same was also appear to be reasonable. The accident had occurred in the year 2018 and hence the claimant is entitled 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023to Rs.7,000/- per percentage of disability. Accordingly, he is entitled to Rs.3,85,000/- (Rs.7,000x55=3,85,000/-) under the head of disability. The Tribunal fixed the notional income of Rs.9,000/- per month and awarded loss of income for eight months. Taking into consideration, the date of accident, this Court deems it appropriate to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/-. Therefore, the amount of Rs.72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the said head is increased to Rs.1,32,000/- (16,500x8=Rs.1,32,000/-).11. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head pain and suffering. The exhibits P9 and P13, discharge summaries produced by the claimant would indicate that he was in hospital from 21.04.2018 to 07.05.2018 and from 01.08.2019 to 06.08.2019. He suffered Degloving injury in his legs and the movement of his legs are affected. Taking into consideration all these facts, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head pain and suffering. Though the amount of Rs.75,000/- is said to be on the higher side, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head loss of amenities. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to disturb the said amount and the same is confirmed. Similarly, the 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023medical expenses, transportation to hospital, extra nourishment, damages to clothes, etc., are confirmed. 12. In the light of the above discussion, this Court modifies the award passed by the Tribunal as follows:S.NoDescriptionAmount awarded by Tribunal (Rs)Amount awarded by this Court(Rs)1.Pain and suffering75,000/-75,000/-2.Permanent disability2,75,000/-3,85,0003.Loss of earning72,000/-1,32,000/-4.Medical bills4,96,005/-4,96,005/-5.Transport to Hospital25,000/-25,000/-6.Extra nourishment10,000/-10,000/-7.Damages to Clothes and articles2,000/-2,000/-TotalRs.9,55,005/-Rs.11,25,005/-Less 20% contributory negligence Rs.1,91,001/-Rs.2,25,001/-Total7,64,004/-(Rounded off to Rs.7,64,000/-)9,00,004/-(Rounded off to Rs.9,00,000/-)8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023 In view of the discussion made earlier, the appellant is entitled to a sum of 11,25,005/- towards compensation, if 20% of the said amount is deducted under head of contributory negligence, the claimant is entitled to Rs.9,00,000/- . The appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% on the enhanced award. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of MCOP.No.204 of 2018 on the file of MACT/IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Bhavani. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by making formal application before the Tribunal.13. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.24.02.2025Index : Yes/NoSpeaking order:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/Noub 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2 of 2023S.SOUNTHAR, J.ubTo1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Small Causes Court, Chennai.2.The Section OfficerVR Section, High Court, Madras.CMA.No.2 of 202310/11