1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:12.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A.(MD).No.32 of 2011 Zimrath Begam ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.Syed Sahul Hameed 2.The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, 119, Sathyamoorthy Illam, Sekkalai Road, Karaikudi. ... Respondents/Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2009 and made in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Ramanathapuram. For Appellant :Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondents :Mr.K.Baskaran for R-2 No appearance for R-1 JUDGMENT The award dated 02.09.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram is being challenged in the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 2.The appellant herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.5 lakhs, wherein, the present respondents have been shown as respondents. 3.It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has done tailoring work and thereby earned Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per mensum. On 26.04.2007 at about 5.30 p.m, the petitioner has travelled in the auto of the first respondent bearing Regn.No.TN-65-E-0936 and the same has been driven in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident. The vehicle which caused accident has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting compensation as mentioned therein. 4.In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is averred that the first respondent is liable to prove that his driver is having valid driving license. Since the driver of the first respondent is not having valid driving license, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.On the basis of the rival evidence available on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,42,540/- against the first respondent. In order to get enhancement of compensation, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a tailor and due to accident, she lost two fingers in right hand. Under the said circumstances, she is not in a position to continue her profession. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed her monthly income at Rs.1,500/- and in that way, it has fixed Rs.51,840/- and altogether, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is erroneous and the same is liable to be enhanced. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has contended that on the basis of the percentage of disability of the petitioner, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted multiplier method and rightly awarded Rs.51,840/- towards disability and also awarded right and just compensation in respect of other heads and altogether, the present civil miscellaneous appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8.For considering the rival submissions made on either side, the court has to look into the method adopted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for arriving compensation. 9.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.1,500/- per mensum as income of the petitioner. 10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that since the petitioner is a tailor, she would have earned Rs.2,000/- per mensum. But to prove the same, no document has been filed. To put it in short, even for the purpose of showing that the petitioner has been doing tailoring business, no document has been filed. However, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.1,500/- per mensum towards loss of earning and also adopted 18 multiplier. As per Ex.P.10, the petitioner has sustained 16% permanent disability and in that way, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.51,840/- towards permanent disability. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the fact that due to accident, the petitioner has lost two fingers, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.5,000/- towards nourishment and Rs.35,700/- towards medical expenses and the same can be confirmed and in aggregation, the appellant/petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1,52,540/-. 11.In fine, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram is modified as follows: “The appellant/petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1,52,540/- (Rupees one lakh fifty two thousand five https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 hundred and forty only) by way of compensation. In other aspects, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram is confirmed.” Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram. +1cc to Mr.M.Subash Babu, Advocate SR.No.22736 C.M.A.(MD).No.32 of 2011 12.07.2011 vs PA/28.07.2011/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/