1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.08.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.904 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., PLA Building 1st Floor, No.12-A, Kovai Road, Karur. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.Gurusamy .. 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.Pakkianathan .. 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 09.02.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.190 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Court, Karur. For Appellant .. Mr.K.Baskaran For Respondents .. No appearance JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 09.02.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.190 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Court, Karur. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.190 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. It is stated in the petition that the first respondent is the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-43-A-5686 and the same has been insured with the second respondent. The petitioner has driven T.V.S.50 moped bearing Registration No.TN-47- S-0591 on 13.02.2009 at about 03.00 p.m. on Karur-Kujiliyamparai Road. The driver of the first respondent has driven the lorry in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle, which has been driven by the petitioner and due to that accident has happened and due to accident, the petitioner has sustained so many injuries. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner and it is false to say that the driver of the first respondent has driven the lorry in rash and negligent manner and caused accident. The petitioner has claimed excessive compensation and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is stated that the facts mentioned in the petition with regard to accident are not correct and no permanent disability has occurred due to alleged accident and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the available evidence on record the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,36,200/- by way of compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 7. Even though, the respondents have been served with the summonses, appearance has not been made. Under the said circumstances, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of on merits on the basis of the contention putforth on the side of the appellant/second respondent. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has attacked the award in question on the following grounds: (a) In the petition it has been explicitly stated that the petitioner is aged about 55. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without any basis has fixed the age of the petitioner as 49 and therefore the multiplier method adopted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is erroneous. (b) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has excessively awarded certain amounts towards other heads and on that ground also the award in question is liable to be modified. 9. In the petition, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is aged about 55. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed the age of the petitioner as 49 as per Ex.P.7. Ex.P.7 is an Identity Card, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1960. The accident in question has happened on 13.02.2009 and therefore it is needless to say that at the time of accident, the age of the petitioner is 49. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly adopted 13 multiplier. But however the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not deducted anything towards the personal expenses of the petitioner. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed notional income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- and yearly it comes to Rs.36,000/-. As stated earlier, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not deducted anything towards personal expenses and after deducting one-third, it comes to Rs.24,000/- and by way of adopting 13 multiplier, it comes to Rs.3,12,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has deducted 10% towards the negligence on the part of the petitioner and in that way it comes to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Rs.31,200/- and after deducting Rs.31,200/-, it comes to Rs.2,80,800/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition and also transportation. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the view to award Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.20,000/- towards nutrition and transportation and in aggregation the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.4,20,800/-. Since the first respondent/petitioner is entitled to get Rs.4,20,800/- by way of compensation, the award in question is liable to be modified as stated infra. 10. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.190 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Court, Karur is modified as follows: The first respondent/petitioner is entitled to get Rs.4,20,800/- by way of compensation. In other aspect, the award in question is confirmed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Karur. +1cc to Mr.S.Deenadayalan, Advocate Sr.No.28793 +1cc to Mr.K.Bhaskaran, Advocate Sr.No.28425 smn ssk/20.09.2011 /4c-3p/- C.M.A(MD)No.904 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 22.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/