IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.02.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A. Nos. 125 to 127 and 202 of 2004 N. Sriimath .. Appellant in CMA 125 1. N. Reena 2. N. Suba Priya 3. N. Srimath .. Appellants in CMA 126 N. Reena .. Appellant in CMA 127 1. N. Reena 2. N. Suba Priya 3. N. Srimath .. Appellant in CMA 202 Versus 1. A. Shanmugam 2. N. Subramaniam 3. United India Insurance Co Ltd Divisional office No.2, Dr. Sankaran Road .. Respondents in all the Namakkal, Salem District Appeals Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19 against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.05.2002 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No 180, 181, 179 and 182 of 1995 respectively on the file of the Mot Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Cour Coimbatore at Thiruppur. For Appellant : Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel in all the appeals For Respondents : Mr. J. Rengarajan for R3 in all the appeals https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON JUDGMENT All these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 09.05.20 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 180, 181, 179 and 182 of 1995 respectively the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judg Fast Track Court, Coimbatore at Thiruppur. The appellants in all the appeals are seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries/dea sustained by the occupants of a car in one and the same acciden Therefore, by consent of counsel for both sides, all these appeals a taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In all these cases, the insurance company admits the date, ti and manner in which the accident had occurred as also the liability to p the compensation amount. The insurance company has not preferred a appeal as against the compensation awarded by the court below in favour the claimants/ appellants herein. 3. CMA No. 125 of 2004 arises out of MACTOP No. 180 of 199 MACTOP No. 180 of 1995 was filed by the claimant contending that 24.08.1994, his father Nandagopal was driving the vehicle – Maruthi V bearing Registration No. TME 4511 from Coimbatore to Tiruchengode Coimbatore to Avinashi NH-47 Main Road. According to the claimant, he a his sister Reena were sitting in the back seat, while their mother w sitting along side of his father in the car. At that time, the lor bearing Registration No. TN-27-X-0869 was driven by its driver in a ra and negligent manner in the opposite side and dashed against the maru van. In the impact, both the claimant and his sister Reena sustain grievous injuries, while his father and mother died on the spot. T claimant sustained injuries on the head over left frontal bone, left ea left shoulder, right ankle, left frontal bone fracture and left tempo peroparietal extradural prematoma and multiple bodily injuries. He w taken to Kovai Medical Centre at Coimbatore where he was treated up 12.10.1994. At the time of the accident, the claimant was 17 years. completed his higher secondary +2 and got admitted in Bachelor Engineering in K.S.R. Engineering College at Tiruchengode. In fact, t accident had occurred when he was on the way to join his college. Due the accident, the claimant gets severe headache often, giddiness, loss concentration, tiredness and he lost his physical as well as mental powe Therefore, for the injuries sustained by the claimant, he filed the cla petition claiming Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation. 4. C.M.A. No. 126 of 2004 arises out of M.A.C.T.O.P No. 181 1995. This claim petition was filed by the legal heirs, daughters and s of the deceased Vasantha Mani, claiming compensation for her death in t accident that took place on 24.08.1994. According to the claimants, the time of the accident, the deceased Vasanthamani was aged 48 a working as an Accountant cum Computer Operator in Sree Dhasame Industrie https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore and earning Rs.3,750/- per month. Havi lost their mother in the road accident, the claimants have filed the cla petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 5. C.M.A. No. 127 of 2004 arise out of M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 179 of 19 filed by Reena, one of the occupants of the Car. At the time accident, the claimant was 23 years old, she was employed as a Dan Teacher in G.D. Matriculation School, Coimbatore and earning Rs.3,000/ She sustained injuries in the nature of (i) fracture left ulna (i diffuse axenal porain (iii) fracture crown + left inisor (iv) injuri over right thigh (v) contusion over chest wall and submandibular regi (v) contusion on both knees (vi) severe injuries on her both knees a hands. Due to the accident, she could not walk as before, she often ge headache, giddiness, tiredness etc.,; she is unable to move her neck before; she was forced to stop dancing classes because of the injuries neck, legs and hip and her movement was completely restricte Immediately after the accident, she was admitted in Kovai Medical Centr Coimbatore where she was admitted as inpatient from 24.08.1994 31.08.1994 and still continuing her treatment. Therefore, for t injuries sustained by her in the accident, she filed the claim petiti claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 6. C.M.A. No. 202 of 2004 arises out of M.C.O.P. No. 182 of 19 filed by the legal heirs of Nandagopal, who died in the accident that to place on 24.08.1994. According to the claimants, at the time of acciden their father was aged 52 and working as a General Manager of Sri Anja Non-vegetarian Restaurant at Coimbatore at earning Rs.5,200/- per mont Therefore, for the death of their father, the claimants have filed t claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants wou contend that the Court below failed to consider that the claimants ha lost their bread winner as well as their parents in the road acciden besides that they have sustained grievous injuries and were hospitalis for a prolonged period. Even though the claimants have proved the inco of their father as well as mother, who died in the road accident examining their employer, the court below, without proper consideration the same had awarded a meager amount as compensation. In any event, t award passed by the Court below is meager and prayed for enhancement the compensation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company fair admits the date, time and manner in which the accident had occurre including the liability to pay the compensation. The learned counsel f the insurance company would only contend that the court below had tak into consideration all the material aspects and awarded a fair a reasonable compensation and therefore interference of this Court is n warranted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Heard both sides. The point for consideration in these appea are whether the compensation awarded by the court below is liable to interfered with or not. 10. In this case, out of the four occupants of the car, includi the driver and father of the claimants, the father and mother of t claimants died on the spot and the claimants have sustained injuries the accident. Therefore, the Court below had taken common evidence a all the Claim Petitions were disposed of by a common judgment. On beha of the claimants, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exs. P1 to P87 were marke On behalf of the respondents in the claim petition, no witnesses we examined nor any documents marked. 11. CMA No. 202 of 2004:- First, we will take up C.M.A. No. 202 2004, which arise out of MCOP No. 182 of 1995 relating to the death of t deceased Nandagopal. The father of the claimants was 52 years at the ti of his death. Ex.P43 is the post mortem report. He was employed as General Manager in Sri Anjali Non-Vegetarian Restaurant and earni Rs.5,200/- per month. PW5, Govindaraj, who was the employer of t deceased Nandagopal was examined, who, in his evidence, had stated th the deceased was employed in Sri Anjali Non-Vegetarian Restaurant a earning Rs.5,200/- per month. Through PW5, Ex. P86 was market whi relates to the pay list maintained by the Restaurant for the year 1994 1995. The Court below disbelieved the age of the deceased mentioned Ex.P43 and the monthly income mentioned in Ex.P86 and rejected i Therefore, the court below had taken a notional income of Rs.1,800/- p month, given 1/3rd deduction and arrived at the monthly contribution the deceased at Rs.1,200/- and arrived at the yearly contribution Rs.14,400/-. By applying multiplier '11' the court below awarded a sum Rs.1,58,400/-. By adding Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection at t rate of Rs.5,000/- to each of the claimants, a total sum of Rs.1,73,400 was awarded. 12. The Court below without any valid reason had discarded t evidence of the PW5, employer of the deceased Nandagopal as well as t pay list produced by him to prove the income of the deceased. As per t decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, even a coolie, at that point time, will earn Rs.2,000/- per month, but the court below taken t monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,800/-. In any event, when t employer was examined and salary certificate was produced, there is justification on the part of the court below to disregard the sam However, if we take a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as salary, as again the claim of Rs.5,200/- made by the claimants, after giving 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses, a sum of Rs.3,000/- can be taken monthly income of the deceased. By applying multiplier '11', since t deceased was 52 years at the time of his death, the fair and reasonab compensation to be awarded towards loss of income will be (Rs.3,000 X 12 11) Rs.3,96,000/-. Whereas, the Court below awarded only a sum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.1,73,400/- in toto. By awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards love a affection and another Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the tot compensation amount will come to Rs.4,16,000/-. The difference betwe the amount determined by the Court below and this Court is Rs.2,42,600/- however, the claimants have restricted their claim in this appeal to t extent of Rs.2 lakhs. Therefore, this appeal is allowed by enhancing t total compensation payable to the claimants to Rs.3,73,400/- i.e., Rs lakhs over and above the amount awarded by the Court below Rs.1,73,400/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. No costs. 13. CMA No. 126 of 2004:- Next we shall take up the claim petiti filed by the claimants seeking compensation for the death of their moth namely CMA No. 126 of 2004 arising out of MCOP No. 181 of 1995. At t time of accident, the deceased Vasantha Mani was 48 years. The claiman would contend that their mother was working as a Computer Operator a earning Rs.3,750/- per month. Ex.P42 is the salary certificate issued the deceased. To claimants have also produced Ex.P85, Salary Regist from the employer of the deceased. Here again, the court bel disbelieved the documentary evidence filed by the claimants to prove t income of the deceased and taken a notional income of Rs.1,800/- p month. After deducting 1/3rd deduction, a sum of Rs.1,200/- was arriv at the yearly contribution at Rs.14,400/-. By applying multiplier '1 the court below awarded a sum of Rs.1,87,200/-. By adding Rs.15,000 towards love and affection for the claimants, a total sum of Rs.2,02,200 was awarded as compensation, which is questioned by the claimants in th appeal. 14. In this case also, even though the claimants have examined t employer of the deceased PW4, Mr. Govindaraj and also marked Exs. P42 a P85 to prove the income of the deceased, without any valid reasons, t court below disbelieved the same. As per the decision of the Honourab Supreme Court, even a coolie, at that point of time, will earn Rs.2,000 per month, but the court below taken the monthly income of the deceased Rs.1,800/-. In any event, when the employer was examined and sala certificate was produced, there is no justification on the part of t court below to disregard the same. Therefore, if we accept the eviden of PW4/employer and take a sum of Rs.3,750/- per month as salary, aft giving 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, a sum of Rs.2,500/- c be taken as monthly income of the deceased. By applying multiplier '13 since the deceased was 48 years at the time of her death, the fair a reasonable compensation to be awarded towards loss of income will (Rs.2,500 X 12 X 13) Rs.3,90,000/-. Whereas, the Court below awarded on a sum of Rs.2,02,200/- in toto. By awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- towar love and affection and another 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the tot compensation amount will come to Rs.4,10,000/-. The difference betwe the amount determined by the Court below and this Court is Rs.2,08,000/- however, the claimants have restricted their claim in this appeal to t extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, this appeal is allowed by enhanci the total compensation payable to the claimants to Rs.3,52,200/- i.e https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.1,50,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the Court below Rs.2,02,200/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. No costs. 15. CMA No. 125 of 2004:- This is a case of injury. The claiman who was 18 years old by then and had completed his higher secondary (+ and who had got admission in an Engineering College had sustained inju in the accident. In fact, the accident took place when the claiman along with his father, mother and sister went to the college for joini the Engineering Course. The claimant sustained injuries on the head ov left frontal bone, left ear, left shoulder, right ankle, left frontal bo fracture and left temporo peroparietal extradural prematoma and multip bodily injuries. He was taken to Kovai Medical Centre at Coimbatore whe he was treated as an in-patient from 24.08.1994 12.10.1994, roughly abo 50 days. Ex.A47 and A48 are the discharge summary issued to the claiman Ex.A49 is the disability certificate issued by the Doctor, PW3 assessi the disability of the claimant at 50% as his movements are restricte The claimant also examined himself PW2 and deposed that due to t accident, he gets severe headache often, giddiness, loss of concentratio tiredness and he lost his physical as well as mental power. 16. The Court below taking into consideration that the claimant h produced medical bills under Exs. A16 to A75 to the tune of Rs.1,92,980. granted the same by rounding it off to Rs.1,93,000/-. This shows t nature and extent of treatment underwent by the claimant. As far compensation for disability is concerned, even though the Doctor h assessed the disability at 50%, the Court below granted Rs.500/- p percentage of disability and awarded only a sum of Rs.25,000/- which very meager. For pain and suffering, the Court below awarded another s of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, a total sum of Rs.2,28,000/- was awarded by t Court below as compensation for the claimant, which is questioned by t claimants in this appeal and seeks for enhancement of the compensati amount. 17. It is seen from the records that the claimant was admitted the hospital for around 50 days and undergone enormous pain a sufferings. Therefore, as per the decision of the Division Bench of th Court, in a case of injury, a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage disability can be granted. If the ratio laid down by the Division Ben of this Court is adopted, then the claimant is entitled to a sum Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.2000 X 50) which will be the just and fair compensati towards disability. 18. For Pain and suffering, for more than 50 days of hospitalisati of an young boy of 18 years old, the court below ought to have award some reasonable amount, instead of awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/ Therefore, for pain and suffering, the claimant is entitled Rs.25,000/-. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 19. The Court below has not awarded any amount towards attenda charges, extra nutrition or transportation. The amount so far awarded favour of the claimant under these heads (disability and pain a suffering) would works out to Rs.1,25,000/- over and above the amount Rs.2,28,000/- awarded by the Court below. If amounts are awarded towar attendant charges, extra nutrition and transportation charges, t compensation payable to the claimant will still be higher. Unfortunatel the claimants have restricted their claim in this appeal to the extent Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, this appeal is allowed by enhancing t compensation to Rs.3,38,000/- i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- over and above t amount awarded by the Court below at Rs.2,38,000/-, with interest at t rate of 9% per annum. No costs. 20. CMA No. 127 of 2004:- This is also a case in which the claima had sustained injury. At the time of accident, the claimant was 23 yea old, employed as a Dance Teacher in G.D. Matriculation School, Coimbato and earning Rs.3,000/-. PW6, employer was examined to prove the month earning of the claimant. She sustained injuries in the nature of ( fracture left ulna (ii) diffuse axenal porain (iii) fracture crown + le inisor (iv) injuries over right thigh (v) contusion over chest wall a submandibular region (v) contusion on both knees (vi) severe injuries her both knees and hands. She was admitted in the hospital betwe 24.08.1994 to 31.08.1994. Ex. P6 is the discharge summary. In order prove the injuries sustained by the claimant, PW3, Doctor was examine who had stated that for the injuries sustained in the accident, t claimant had to undergo a surgery in which screws have to be inserte The Court below disbelieved the evidence of the Doctor by stating that t Doctor examined the claimant only after three years of the accident a therefore, his version is exaggerated. Therefore, the Court below award a sum of Rs.15,000/- for injuries; Rs.7,500/- for pain and sufferin Rs.7,500/- for loss of income during the period of treatment. The medic bills claimed by the claimant at Rs.46,485.54 was accepted by the cou below and the said sum was ordered towards medical expenses. Ultimatel the court below granted Rs.76,500/- as compensation. 21. The claimant examined herself as PW1 and deposed that due to t accident, she could not walk as before, she often gets headach giddiness, tiredness etc.,; she is unable to move her neck as before; s was forced to stop dancing classes because of the injuries on neck, le and hip and her movement was completely restricted. PW3 Doctor was al examined who had assessed the disability of the claimant at 50% under Ex A7 and A8. Ex.A10 was the salary certificate produced by the claimant a the employer was also examined as PW6. The claimant also spent a sum Rs.46,485.54 towards medical expenses which would indicate the nature a extent of the injuries suffered by her. There is no other contra eviden adduced on the side of the respondents in the claim petition to dispro https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the monthly income or the period of hospitalisation. In the absence the same, the Court below is not justified in granting a sum Rs.15,000/- when the Doctor had assessed the disability at 50%. T claimant, being a Dance teacher, due to the injuries in her leg, h deposed that she is unable to continue her profession as befor Therefore it is clear that what was awarded as compensation by the Cou below is meager and unreasonable. 22. For the purpose of determination of compensation, if 5 disability assessed by the Doctor is taken into account, even Rs.1,000/- per percentage of disability is granted, the claimant entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards disability, which will be the fair a reasonable amount of compensation as against Rs.15,000/- granted by t Court below. 23. For pain and suffering, the Court below awarded only Rs.7,500/ Taking into consideration of the fact that the claimant, who was a Dan teacher, was deprived of her earning capacity due to the injuri sustained in the accident to a great extent, especially when she sustain injuries in her legs and hospitalised for a period of eight days and t Doctor also deposed that a surgery has to be performed in her legs a screws and plates have to be inserted, the extent of pain which t claimant suffered will be enormous. Therefore, the compensation und this head is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, which will be fair and reasonable. 24. The Court below awarded Rs.7,500/- towards loss employment a for amenities. Taking into consideration that due to the injuri sustained by the claimant, she could not have been employed atleast for period of six months, a lumpsum compensation of Rs.20,000/- is employ under this head. 25. The Court below has not awarded any amount towards ext nourishment. The claimant, at the age of 23 years had sustained grievo injuries and hospitalised for more than 8 days. Therefore, atleast a s of Rs.10,000/- could be granted to her for extra nourishment. Similarl no amount was awarded towards transportation charges, for which, a sum Rs.5,000/- can be granted. 26. If amounts are awarded under the above heads are calculated, t claimant will be entitled to get higher amount of Rs.1,35,000/- over a above the compensation amount awarded by the Court below. Unfortunatel the claimants have restricted their claim in this appeal to the extent Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, this appeal is allowed by enhancing the tot compensation payable to the claimants to Rs.1,76,500/- i.e., Rs.1,00,000 over and above the amount awarded by the Court below at Rs.76,500 awarded by the Court below, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 27. Accordingly, all the appeals filed by the claimants are allow enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Court below as follows:- Appeal No. Amount awarded Amount awarded by the Court below CMA No. 125 of 2004 Rs.3,38,000/- Rs.2,38,000/- CMA No. 126 of 2004 Rs.3,52,000/- Rs.2,02,000/- CMA No. 127 of 2004 Rs.1,76,500/- Rs.76,500/- CMA No. 202 of 2004 Rs.3,73,400/- Rs.1,73,400/- 28. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanc compensation amount determined in these appeals along with interest at t rate of 7.5% per annum within a period of six weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants a permitted to withdraw their share of compensation amount as apportioned the court below. RSH Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True copy// Sub Assistant Registra To Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Coimbatore at Thiruppur +4 CCs to V.A.Sengotuvel (SR.No.10909,10908,10907,10906) +1 CC to Mr.S.Ramalingam (SR.No.11029) C.M.A. Nos. 125 to 1 and 202 of 20 MBS(C.O) VVI/23.5.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/