1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.245 of 2011 1.A.Prabu @ Arulprabhu (First appellant is represented by his father and natural guardian viz., second appellant herein) 2.Arjunan .. Appellants / Petitioners Vs. 1.K.R.R. Engineering, No.L-17, Ambathur Industrial Estate, Chennai, Thiruvallur District. 2.The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office – 2, M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.20, 73-C, M.T.H. Road, Ambathur, Chennai – 53. .. Respondents / Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 30.04.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai. For Appellants .. Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar For Respondent .. Mr.D.Vijayakumar No.1 For Respondent .. Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan No.2 JUDGMENT The award dated 30.04.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The first appellant herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.15,00,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present respondents have been shown as respondents. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has fixed Rs.3,95,000/- by way of compensation. In order to get enhancement of compensation, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the first petitioner as appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner has repeatedly contended that the accident has happened on 23.11.2008 and due to accident, the petitioner has suffered multiple injuries including injuries in skull as well as in brain and due to that he sustained 40% permanent disability and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/petitioner has erroneously fixed Rs.3,95,000/- by way of compensation and therefore the appellant/ petitioner is entitled to get enhancement of compensation. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has contended that in the instant case, except Disability Certificate as well as the evidence of its author as P.W.3, no acceptable medical evidence has been let in on the side of the appellant/petitioner with regard to nature of injuries sustained by him as well as nature of treatment given to him and under the said circumstances, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly passed an award of Rs.3,95,000/- and the same cannot be enhanced. 6. In fact, this Court has perused the evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner and ultimately found that the petitioner has sustained injury in his skull and also in his brain. But unfortunately, the doctor, who treated the petitioner has not been examined on his side. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and also considering the fact that the concerned doctor must be examined on the side of the petitioner, the Court cannot fix fair and just compensation on the basis of Wound Certificate as well as on the basis of evidence given by P.W.3. Therefore virtually vital medical evidence is lacking on the side of the appellant/petitioner and in order to give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, this Court is of the view to set aside the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and remit the matter to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 7. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai is set aside and M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2009 is remitted to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Sub Court, Kulithalai. The appellant/petitioner is strictly directed to examine the doctor, who treated him and he is also entitled to adduce additional evidence. The Motor Accidents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Kulithalai is directed to dispose of M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2009 before the end of December, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. 8. If the second respondent/Insurance Company deposited any amount, the second respondent Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw the same. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ The Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai. +1cc to Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar, Advocate, Sr.No.31060 +1CC TO Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan, Advocate, Sr.No.31111 C.M.A(MD)No.245 of 2011 12.09.2011 smn SMA/30.09.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/