1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.819 of 2011 Marimuthu .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.M/s.Venus Chemicals rep.by its Proprietor (ex parte before Tribunal) 2.Branch Manager New India Assurance Co.Ltd No.3 Main Road,Dindigul. .. Respondents/Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 06.09.2010 passed in MCOP.No.513 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional Sub Court, Dindigul. For Appellant : Mr.A.Saravanan For R – 2 : No appearance For R-1 : Exparte before Tribunal JUDGMENT The award dated 06.09.2010 passed in MCOP.No.513 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional Sub Court, Dindigul is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The appellant herein as petitioner has filed MCOP.No.513 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under sections 140, 141 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to pass an award of Rs.3,00,000/-, wherein the present respondents have been shown as respondents. 3. It is stated in the petition that on 05.09.2006 at about 4.00 pm. the petitioner has travelled on the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-57-H-2495. At that time the mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN- 38-Q-7619 has been driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler on which the petitioner has travelled and due to that accident has happened and the petitioner has sustained multiple injuries including fracture. The vehicle which caused accident belongs to the first respondent and the same has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for getting compensation for the amount mentioned therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent it is averred that the entire accident has happened only due to the rider of the two wheeler and the driver of the first respondent is not responsible for the accident. The petitioner has claimed excessive compensation and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.54,000/- by way of compensation and fixed entire liability upon the second respondent. In order to get https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 enhancement of compensation, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed at the instance of the petitioner as appellant. 6. Even though the second respondent has been served with summons appearance has not been made and further a memo has been filed to the effect that since the first respondent has remained ex parte in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, notice need not be sent to him and the same is recorded. Under the said circumstances, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of on merits on the basis of the contention put forth on the side of the appellant/petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner has contended that the petitioner has sustained 39% permanent disability as per Ex.P6 and further as per Ex.P10 the petitioner has sustained 117% disability. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as quantum of disability suffered by him has erroneously awarded a meagre sum of Rs.54,000/- and therefore, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 8. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed 20% permanent disability and awarded Rs.40,000/-. Considering the fact that in Ex.P6 only 39% has been given, this Court is of the view that quantum of amount awarded towards permanent disability is perfectly correct and the same need not be interfered with. 9. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the view to award Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not awarded anything towards loss of income and towards loss of income, this Court is of the view to award Rs.10,000/- and in aggregation the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.80,000/-. Since the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.80,000/- by way of compensation, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal can be allowed in part. 10. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part without cost and the award passed in MCOP.No.513 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional Sub Court, Dindigul is modified as follows: The appellant/petitioner is entitled to get Rs.80,000/- by way of compensation. In other aspects, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claimed Tribunal is confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. +1cc to Mr.A.Saravanan, Advocate SR.No.27854 C.M.A(MD)No.819 of 2011 mj 17.08.2011 PA/12.09.2011/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/