w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Pichaikaran v/s I.C.L. International Ltd., Dheen Buildings, Chennai & Others

    C.M.A. No. 682 of 2019

    Decided On, 09 September 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

    For the Appellant: S. Kalyanaraman, Advocate. For the Respondents: K. Padmanabhan, M.J. Vijayaraghavan, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2007 passed in M.C.O.P. No.513 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Additional District Fast Track Court No.2-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.)The judgment and decree dated 31.01.2007 passed in M.C.O.P. No.513 of 2005 by the learned Additional District Judge, Additional District Fast Track Court No.2-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. The claimant, who is the appellant herein, filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and not in commensuration with the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant due to the accident.4. The claimant had sustained a fracture in the right upper arm, dislocation of shoulder and the movement of the shoulder is restricted. The Doctor also assessed the disability as 40%. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have granted a reasonable compensation. However, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.85,600/-, which is inadequate and not a reasonable compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant reiterated that the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant were grievous warranting higher amount of compensation.5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company disputed the contentions raised by the appellant and stated that the appellant had been admitted in the Hospital for about six days and all the injuries are minor in nature. The treatment taken as well as the discharge summary were not marked as documents before the Tribunal. In the absence of discharge summary, the Tribunal would be right in granting compensation with reference to other medical documents. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.6. The accident occurred on 04.10.1999 at about 07.30 A.M., at GST Road, Nagari Village, Railway Gate, near Ulundurpet. The Ulundurpet Police Station registered a case in Crime No.722 of 1999. Due to the accident, the appellant claimant sustained injuries and had taken treatment at Government Hospital, Cuddalore and thereafter, at JIPMER, Pondicherry. Even at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 60 years and he had stated that he was working as Coolie. Now the claimant would be around 81 years old.7. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and the evidences. The Tribunal arrived a finding that the driver of the lorry had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and therefore, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-01-P-7481 is liable and consequently, the Insurance Company has to pay compensation to the appellant/victim.8. With reference to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had adjudicated the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/ claimant. The fact remains that the discharge summary had not been marked as a document. Undoubtedly, there is a fracture and the claimant had taken treatment. The Tribunal awarded compensation for discharge as well as for loss of income. The accident occurred in the year 1999 and with reference to the cost index of the year 1999, the disability compensation as well as loss of income were assessed and a total compensation of Rs.85,600/- was warded. Therefore, the learned counsel cannot now seek enhancement with reference to the present context of the cost index.9. Considering the fact that the accident occurred during the year 1999 and the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.85,600/- during the relevant point of time, this Court do not find any error or otherwise with reference to the quantum of compensatio

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

n granted. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just compensation.10. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2007 passed in M.C.O.P. No.513 of 2005 by the learned Additional District Judge, Additional District Fast Track Court No.2-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore stands confirmed and consequently, CMA No.682 of 2019 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
O R