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



R. Bala & Others v/s Aditya Mavimkurve & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2012PLC231460

Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA AND COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107RJ2004PTC019073

    C.M.A. No. 354 of 2019

    Decided On, 16 September 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

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

    For the Appellants: T.G. Balachandran, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1. Exparte, R2. M. Krishnamoorthy, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in MCOP.No.4296 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai dated 18th day of March 2008.)1.The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.4296 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. The claimants are the appellants and the appeal is filed, seeking enhancement of compensation.3. The accident occurred on 12.09.2003 at about 09.10 hrs at Kodambakkam High Road and North Usman Road Signal Point. R4, Pondy Bazaar Police Station, Traffic Investigation, T.Nagar, registered a case in Crime No.370/TN1/2003. Due to the accident, the deceased person sustained fracture. However, after a lapse of about 15 months, he died on 02.12.2004.4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants made a submission that the deceased had taken treatment for a continuous period and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The Tribunal ought to have considered the continuous treatment taken by the deceased person and further, he sustained fracture, which is grievous.5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company disputed the contentions by stating that it is a simple case of fracture and he had taken treatment only as outpatient. The death of the deceased is noway connected with the accident or the injury sustained during the accident. The death occurred after a lapse of 15 months and further, it is not established before the Tribunal that the death was due to the accident or the injuries sustained. Thus, the appeal is devoid of merits.6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the accident occurred in the year 2003. Even as per the Claim Petition, the deceased sustained Right Knee Fracture, Contusion over left femur and multiple injuries. For Knee Fracture, treatment was provided as outpatient and thereafter, he died on 02.12.2004, after a lapse of about 15 months. Therefore, it cannot be construed that the death occurred due to the accident. Further, there is no proof established before the Tribunal that the death occurred due to the cause of the accident.7. The Tribunal, on adjudication, found that the owner of the offending car admitted the contentions of the claimants and accordingly, the driver of the car was held responsible for the accident. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.17,055/- on the ground that the deceased had taken treatment as outpatient for Knee Fracture and the death was unconnected with the accident.8. There is no Disability Certificate as it is made available for consideration. Considering the nature of the injury and the fact that the deceased had taken treatment as outpatient, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has considered these aspects and quantified the compensation. However, even in case of fracture, the treatment would have been continued at least for a period of three weeks or four weeks. Even in case of fracture, it will take a minimum period of two to three weeks for cure. Presuming that it is ordinary fracture, the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that further treatment would be necessary for complete cure of the fracture. Thus, the award of a sum of Rs.17,055/- is on the lower side and this Court is of an opinion that it would be reasonable, if a sum of Rs.25,000/- is fixed as compensation. This Court is not inclined to go into the other aspects regarding the quantum of compensation calculated. The overall compensation must be on the lower side and taking note of that fact and considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2003, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation from Rs.17,055/- to Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)9. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a total compensation of a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). The appellants/claimants are entitled to get the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.10. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest within a period of twelve(12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, deducting the amount already deposited and on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest as per the apportionment granted by the Tribunal in its

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

award by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal and the payments are to be made through RTGS. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the additional Court fee, if any, with reference to the enhanced compensation within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.11. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.4296 of 2003 stands modified and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.354 of 2019 is allowed in part. No costs.
O R