CMA/1412/2023 of B.GOWRISHANKAR Vs T.SARAVANAN on 15 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by E.Manoharan J.) The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.6771 of 2017 dated 01.03.2022. The claimant in the said MCOP has filed this appeal before this Court.

2. The facts are set out herein below and the parties are referred to as claimant and respondents:- The claimants states that on 19.07.20217 at about 11.00 AM., while he was riding the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-73-S-8921 from Minnal to Arakonam on Minal Errikarai Road opposite to Subramani land, a Tata Ace

Van bearing Registration No.TN-73-S-7624 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction on the extreme wrong side of the road, hit the motor cycle driven by the claimant and this led to the claimant falling down and sustaining grievous injuries. The claimant states that the driver of the Ace Van is fully responsible for the accident and the first respondent, is the owner and the said Van has been insured with the second respondent vide insurance police No. MOQ1147032 for the period from 25.05.2017 to 24.05.2018. The claimant has stated that therefore, the first respondent and the second respondent are both jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

3. The claimant has claimed the compensation of Rs.1 Crore for the injuries said to have sustained by him in the road accident. The claimant is a Veterinary Doctor and was working in Minnal Veterinary Hospital at Arakonam and claims to have been earning around Rs.55,000/- per month.

4. Inspite of service of notice to the first respondent, he has not chosen to appear before the Tribunal and was called and marked as absent and was set ex- parte.

5. The second respondent, who appeared before the Tribunal, in their counter statements has denied the allegations raised by the claimant and has stated that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ace Van and that in fact, the claimant has contributed to the accident. The second respondent also called upon the claimant to prove the permanent disability suffered by him. The respondent has also stated that the claim suffers from non joinder of parties i.e., the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-73-S-8921 in which claimant is stated to have travelled. The second respondent in their counter statement had also said that at the time of the accident, the driver of the Ace Van was not holding valid licence and therefore the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. The second respondent has stated that the claim of the claimant is exaggerated and disproportionate to the injuries sustained by him and in light of the above, prayed to dismiss the claim petition filed by the claimant.

6. The Tribunal after hearing the parties framed the following the questions: a)Who has attributed negligence for the cause of the accident? b)Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? c)If so, which respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner? d)If so, what extent and quantum the petitioner is entitled for compensation?

7. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as P.W.1.and exhibits P1 to P24 were marked. Ex C1 was the disability certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai. On the side of the second respondent / Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced and no exhibits were marked.

8. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, has held as follows:-

a) The Tribunal was of the view that the driver of the Tata Ace Van bearing Registration No.TN-73-s-7624 had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle driven by the claimant and caused the accident.

b) The Tribunal in the light of the above, held that it is substantially proved that the claimant has sustained injuries in the accident and took treatment and therefore, the Tribunal was on the view that the claimant is entitled for Compensation.

c) The Tribunal also held that the offending vehicle was covered through a valid policy and the driver of the Tata Ace Van also possessed a valid license and therefore, since the vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the Tribunal was of the view that the second respondent is liable to indemnify the first respondent and to pay the compensation.

d) On the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal observed that the

Medical Board had examined him and issued a Disability Certificate at 45% . The Tribunal has also noted that the Certificate has not mentioned about the nature of disability i.e., whether it is permanent or temporary.

9. The Disability Certificate was not challenged by the claimant or the second respondent. Therefore, considering 45% disability for the injuries suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal has calculated the amounts to be paid under various categories and has finally arrived at a total compensation of Rs. 11,99,330/-which is rounded off to Rs. 11,99,400/-. The break-up details of the compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal is extracted here below: S.I.No. Heads Amount

Compensation for injuries Rs.2,25,000.00

Loss of Income Rs.1,65,000.00

Medical expenses Rs.5,06,330.00

Attender charges Rs. 28,000.00

Pain and Sufferings Rs.2,50,000.00

Extra Nourishment Rs. 15,000.00

Transportation Rs. 10,000.00 Total Rs.11,99,330.00 [Rounded

off

to Rs.11,99,400.00]

10. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.11,99, 400/-with interest at 7.5%. p.a. from the date of this case be taken on file (i.e) 17.11.2017 till the date of realisation excluding the period of dismissal if any.

11. Aggrieved by the above amount awarded by the Tribunal as insufficient and less, the Claimant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal herein.

12. The claimant in his grounds of appeal, has stated that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant and erred in adopting the multiplier method for computing compensation towards permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. The claimant alleges that the injuries had caused substantial permanent disability. It is also alleged by the claimant that the Tribunal has failed to take note that he was a professionally qualified Veterinary Doctor only aged about 32 years at the time of accident and this has severely affected his efficiency and abilities in doing his day-to-day activities including his professional duties. The claimant has stated that the Tribunal ought to have fixed monthly income at a sum not less than Rs.82,000/- for the purpose of computing compensation and that the claimant has stated that Ex C1 was not been opposed by the second respondent and this should have been taken into consideration while adopting the multiplier method and therefore, the claimant ought to have been awarded higher compensation. Apart from the above grounds, the claimant has also in his grounds of appeal had questioned the various amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads and had submitted reasons for enhancement of his claim under each heads with a total principal amount of compensation payable should have been Rs.1,00,17,830/- and also stated that interest of 7.5% should be revised to 12%. p.a and under these grounds, had challenged the Tribunal Award.

13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent submitted that while the claimant has been claiming compensation for the permanent disability suffered by him in his pleadings, Ex C1 does not mention whether it is permanent or temporary. In support of his contention, the learned counsel refers to the order of the Tribunal and states that the Tribunal has rightly observed Ex C1 which is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board where it does not mention whether it is permanent or temporary. Therefore, the claim of the claimant that it is permanent disability cannot be taken into consideration. He also went to submit that the claimant had not given sufficient evidence to support the enhancement of compensation sought for in the appeal herein, especially, with regard to his earning capacity and loss of income etc. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is fair and just and does not require to be enhanced.

14. Heard the learned Counsels on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

15. It is seen from the records that while the Ex.C1 / disability certificate has been issued by the Medical Board to an extent of 45%, the same does not mention whether it the is permanent or temporary.

16. Nevertheless, it is admitted that the claimant had suffered disability in the form of Pipkin’s type 4 fracture with dislocation right hip. On account of the accident and a perusal of the discharge summary goes to show that he undergone surgery viz., Complex Post acetabular + Reconstruction Right Hip and that he has also received physiotherapy in order to restore his mobility. Hence the disability certificate and medical records make it clear that the claimant was admitted in the hospitals and underwent surgeries and taken treatment due to the accident and due to which, he has also suffered 45% disability and by taking all these into consideration, it is our view that the Tribunal fixing Rs. 5000/- per percentage for the injuries sustained is at a lower end and requires to be enhanced and therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.7000/- per percentage. In light of the same, the award of the Tribunal under the head of compensation of injuries which was Rs.2,25,000/- is now enhanced to Rs. 3,15,000-.

17. As stated above, the records and the operation notes would show that considerable treatment has gone into healing the claimant of his injuries and this process would have caused him great difficulty and hardship. In light of the pain and discomfort faced by the claimant, this Court feels that the award of the Tribunal towards the head “Pain and Suffering” requires to be enhanced. Therefore, it is enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-from the original award of Rs.2,50,000/-. The claimant is a Surgeon and requires to be in a better health in order to perform his duties in fullest of his effort, hence, the compensation towards extra-nourishment is also increased to 25,000/-from Rs.15,000/-.

18. It is seen that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. Taking into consideration the trauma and injuries suffered by the claimant, the surgeries undergone by him so as to able to move around without difficulty and has taken rehabilitation therapy such as physiotherapy in the process of his due treatment and also travelled between the hospitals for his necessary treatments and and the strains involved in the line of his profession as a Surgeon, it is also our view that the claimant will have to be duly compensated under the said Transportation Category. In the light of the same, we hold that the award of the Tribunal under the head “transportation” requires to be interfered with and therefore, the compensation towards the said head is increased to Rs.50,000 from Rs.10,000/-. In view of the same, the award is enhanced to. Rs.13,89, 330/- which is rounded off to Rs.13,89,300/-. With the above said enhancements, the other Categories in the Award require no enhancement / consideration.

19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part to the extent as mentioned above and a sum of Rs.11,99,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced to Rs.13,89,300/--. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,89,900/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. in addition to the award amount of Rs.11,99,400/- already awarded by the Tribunal. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance amount with proportionate interest to the credit of MCOP.No.6771 of 2017 on the file of the MACT (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with proportionate interest. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 15-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DP

To

1. The II Judge, Court of Small Causes (MCAT), Chennai.

P.T.ASHA, J. AND E.MANOHARAN, J. DP CMA No. 1412 of 2023 15-09-2026