1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.890 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2 of 2011 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. represented by its Manager, TVS Co-operative Stores Building, 37, Krishna Rao Tank Street, Madurai – 625 001. .. Appellant/Repsondent No.2 Vs. 1.R.Ramasamy represented by guardian/ wife viz., Vembarasi. 2.E.Balasubramanian .. Respondents/Petitioner & Respondent No.1 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 29.04.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.86 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Karur. For Appellant .. Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent .. Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam No.1 For Respondent .. No appearance No.2 JUDGMENT The award dated 29.04.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.86 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Karur is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.86 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein, wherein the present appellant as well as second respondent have been shown as respondents. 3. It is stated in the petition that on 24.10.2007 at about 09.00 a.m., the petitioner has driven his T.V.S.50 bearing Registration No.TN-47- 9160 on Karur – Coimbatore Main Road. At that time, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-39-AL-5643 has been driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, which has been driven by the petitioner and thereby caused accident. Due to accident, the petitioner has sustained multiple injuries including fractures. The lorry which caused the accident has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting compensation as claimed in the petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is stated that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. 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.11,16,500/- by way of compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has not touched the quantum of compensations awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses, nutrition, future medical expenses and pain and sufferings. 7. The first and foremost attack made on the side of the appellant/second respondent is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without getting any evidence with regard to expenses incurred towards assistants has unnecessarily awarded Rs.25,000/-. In fact this Court has perused the entire available evidence on record and nowhere it is stated that the petitioner has spent Rs.25,000/- towards assistants. Under the said circumstances, the award of Rs.25,000/- towards assistants by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cannot accepted. 8. The second attack made on the side of the appellant/second respondent is that even though in the petition it has been stated about the monthly as well as yearly income of the petitioner, no acceptable evidence has been forthcoming, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and since the petitioner comes under non-earning income group his monthly income should be fixed at Rs.4,500/- and therefore the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal with regard to loss of future income cannot be granted. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner has also equally contended that the petitioner is owning agricultural land and he is also a weaver and under the said circumstances the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed his yearly income at Rs.60,000/- and therefore the amount awarded towards loss of future income by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference. 10. As rightly pointed out on the side of the appellant/second respondent, no document has been filed so as to prove that the petitioner is owning agricultural lands and likewise no acceptable and trustworthy evidence has been forthcoming that the petitioner has earned Rs.5,000/- as monthly income either through the alleged agricultural operation or through weaving. Under the said circumstances, the view taken by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the effect that the petitioner would have earned Rs.5,000/- per month cannot be accepted. 11. It is an admitted fact that as per the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, if any person comes under non-earning income group his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 monthly income could be fixed at Rs.4,500/-. It is also equally an admitted fact that the petitioner has sustained 65% permanent disability. Under the said circumstances, loss of future income comes to Rs.5,26,500/-. It has already been decided that there is no grievance on the side of the appellant/second respondent with regard to the amounts passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in respect of medical expenses, nutrition, future medical expenses and pain and sufferings. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,21,500/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, nutrition, future medical expenses and pain and sufferings and in aggregation the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.10,18,000/- and to that extent the award in question is liable to be modified. 12. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.86 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Karur is modified as follows: The first respondent/petitioner is entitled to get Rs.10,18,000/- by way of compensation. In other aspect, the award in question is confirmed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. smn C.M.A(MD)No.890 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 06.09.2011 TR : 16.09.2011 : 3p/2c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/