IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.04.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR C.M.A.No.1145 of 2010 M.P.No.1 of 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited., Oriental Complex, 77, A.A. Street, Salem-1. ... Appellant/II Respondent Vs... 1.K.Raju ...1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.C.Sundarraj ...2nd Respondent/1st Respondent Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.592 of 2002, dated 06.02.2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims, [Principal Sub-Judge], Salem. For Appellant : Mr.K.Suryanarayanan J U D G M E N T Questioning the quantum of compensation, the appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal. Hence, there is no need to delve into the aspects of negligence and liability. 2. Facts leading to the appeal are as follows: That on 20.03.2002, at about 07.30 P.M., when the first respondent was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 27 B.6199, from Dalmia Board to his residence at Jagir Reddipatti near Mahindra Godown, on the extreme left side of the road, a TVS 50 XL/Super motor cycle bearing registration No.TN30-B4443, driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his motorcycle. In the result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. A case also was registered on the file of Omalur police station under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.TN30-B4443. He claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. Disputing the manner of accident, the appellant- Insurance Company in their counter affidavit, has denied the manner of accident, as stated in the claim petition. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the age, income and 1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ avocation of the respondent/claimant and the compensation claimed under different heads. 4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/claimant examined himself as PW.1 and PW.2 is the Doctor, who examined the respondent/claimant with reference to the medical records and issued the Disability Certificate. Exs.P1 to Ex.P37 were marked on the side of the respondent/claimant. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, two witnesses and seven documents were marked. 5. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal has fixed the negligence at 50% on the riders of the motor cycles involved in the accident and quantified the compensation at Rs.1,53,117/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record. 6. Immediately after the accident, the respondent/claimant was admitted to Bharath Hospital, Salem and thereafter, took treatment in A.G.Neuro Hospital (P) Ltd., Salem and Manipal Hospital, Bangalore and also undergone surgery. To substantiate the same, he has produced documents, such as, Ex.P2-Wound Certificate, dated 23.04.2002; Ex.P6-discharge summary; Ex.P7-medical bills; Ex.P8-medicine bills, dated 21.03.2002; Ex.P9-A.G.Neuro Hospital bills; Ex.P10-medicine bills; Ex.P11-Bangalore Manipal Hospital bills; Ex.P12- prescription of Bangalore Manipal Hospital; Ex.P13-CT Scan report, dated 22.03.2002; Ex.P14-ECG, dated 21.03.2002; Ex.P15- CT Scan, dated 21.03.2002; Ex.P16-CT Scan report, dated 30.10.2002; Ex.P17-CT Scan report, dated 30.10.2002; Ex.P18- discharge summary, dated 29.04.2002; Ex.P19-prescription of A.G.Hospital; Ex.P20-prescription of Manipal hospital; Ex.P21- receipts; Ex.P23-admission card of A.G.Hospital; Ex.P24- admission card of A.G.Hospital; Ex.P26-X-Ray, Ex.P27-CT Scan bill, dated 23.04.2004; Ex.P28-CT Scan, Ex.P30-ECG report, Ex.P31-CT Scan, Ex.P32-scan report, dated 04.09.2004; Ex.P33- Scan bill, dated 04.09.2004; Ex.P34-ECG Bill, dated 08.09.2004; Ex.P35-admission card of A.G.Hospital, dated 09.12.2004; Ex.P36- hospital bills; and Ex.P37-medicine bills. PW.2, Doctor, who examined the respondent with reference to medical records, assessed the permanent disability at 40% and issued Ex.P29- disability certificate. However, considering the medical evidence, the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disability to 20%. 7. According to respondent/claimant, at the time of accident, he was aged 37 years, proprietor of Arun Pipee, Manufacturer of P.V.C. Plastic Pipes and also an agriculturist and milk vendor, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. To prove the 2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same, he has marked documents, such as, Ex.P22-Registration certificate of Arul Pipes, Ex.P25-Income tax payment receipt, dated 31.03.2002. However, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 40 and after applying multiplier method, quantified the disability compensation at Rs.1,94,112/-. That apart, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.98,755/- for medical expenses; Rs.9,166/- towards transportation, Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,000/- towards nutrition and Rs.200/- for demages to clothes. Altogether, the Tribunal quantified the total compensation at Rs.3,06,233/- and after deducting 50% towards negligence awarded Rs.1,53,117/- as compensation, which does not warrant interference from this Court. 8. The quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be excessive warranting reduction. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Ad-I) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar skm To The Principal Sub Judge, Salem (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Salem. C.M.A.No.1145 of 2010 PPA(CO) CB(11/03/2020) 3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/