S. Chandru (Minor) v. The Managing Director

JUDGMENT This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the order dated

04.01.2025 passed in M.C.O.P.1417 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Special Court, Small Causes Court, Chennai, to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶2The brief facts, which are relevant for deciding this appeal, are as follows:

2.1 The appellant was a IX standard student, aged about fifteen years and was doing part time work as newspaper delivery boy. On 24.02.2021 around 8.30 a.m., the appellant was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 5184 owned by the respondent/Corporation. While the appellant was waiting to alight from the bus near the Rail Nagar Junction in Koyambedu-Poonamallee Highway, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the appellant fell down from the bus and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the appellant took treatment in several hospitals as an in-patient from 24.02.2021 to 10.03.2021 for a period of fifteen days and later, his left leg, which sustained injuries, was amputated. The Medical Board assessed the permanent disability at 60%.

2.2 The appellant filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.1417 of 2021 claiming a compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- under various heads. Page3 of 12

2.3 The respondent/Corporation filed their counter before the Tribunal contending that the driver of the bus was driving the bus consciously and since the appellant was travelling on the footboard and he did not come inside the bus despite the advice of the conductor, the same resulted in his fall and sustaining injuries and therefore, he objected the claim.

2.4 The Tribunal framed the following issues:

(a)Whether the accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant on

24.02.2021 at 8.30 a.m. while travelling in the bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 5184 was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus?

(b)If that being so, what was the compensation to be awarded to the appellant?

(c) To what other reliefs?

2.5 From the side of the appellant, PW1/father of the appellant, PW2/staff of the hospital, where, the appellant took treatment, PW3/official of the manufacturer of artificial limb and PW4/eyewitness to the accident, were examined and exhibits P1 to P15 were marked.

2.6 From the side of the respondent/Corporation, one Maari (RW1) was examined and exhibits R1 to R3 were marked. Page4 of 12

2.7 Apart from the above witnesses and exhibits, Exs.C1 to C3 were marked through PW3 and Ex.X1 was also marked.

2.8 The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, awarded a compensation of Rs.43,59,000/- (rounded off) under various heads as follows: S.No. Description Compensation awarded (in Rs.) Medical expenses 6,92,356 Transportation Expenses 25,000 Extra nourishment 20,000 Attendant charges 1,00,000 Loss due to disability 27,21,600 Pain and suffering 5,00,000 Fixation of artificial leg 3,00,000 Total 43,58,956 Further, the Tribunal directed the respondent to pay the said compensation amount along with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit in the Court.

2.9 Not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the appellant made the following submissions:

(a) The appellant was a minor boy studying IX standard at the time of the accident and due to the accident, his left leg below knee was amputated. Page5 of 12

(b)The appellant had to get artificial limb fixed below the left knee (below knee prosthetics).

(c) The appellant approached a company for fixing artificial limb, who gave a quotation for a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rs.21,00,000/- towards purchase + Rs.5,00,000/- towards maintenance), whereas, the Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of Rs.3,00,000/- only.

(d)As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation1, the claimant, in such circumstances, is entitled to the entire value of the artificial limb and he is also entitled to periodic maintenance charges.

(e) The law laid down in Mohd. Sabeer (supra) has been followed by the Apex Court in its yet another judgment in Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways2.

(f) No amount was awarded towards loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects and loss due to disability and disfigurement.

¶4The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation taking into consideration the evidences. He further submitted that the accident happened only on account of the appellant, as he travelled on the footboard. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the appeal. 1(2023) 20 SCC 774 22026 SCC OnLine SC 651 Page6 of 12

¶5Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶6The undisputed facts of this case are as follows: - Accident - Injuries sustained by the appellant - Fixation of 60% permanent disability as per Ex.C1

¶7The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal is right in not awarding compensation for the actual cost for the purchase and maintenance of the prosthetics limb and whether the Tribunal is right in not awarding compensation under the heads loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects and loss due to disability and disfigurement.

¶8In this case, the Tribunal, while awarding compensation under various heads, awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards fixation of artificial limb. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Mohammed Rizwan (PW3), official of the manufacturer of prosthetic limb, was examined and through him Ex.P14 invoice was marked. As per Ex.P14, the value of the prosthetic leg was Rs.21,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- was added towards maintenance. Page7 of 12

¶9The Apex Court, in Mohd. Sabeer (supra), while dealing with compensation for purchase and maintenance of prosthetic limb, has held as follows: "23. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few years. The Appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-." (Emphasis supplied)

¶10In Prahlad Sahai (supra), the Apex Court has quoted with approval the compensation awarded for purchase and maintenance of prosthetic limb in Mohd. Sabeer (supra).

¶11In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohd. Sabeer (supra) and Prahlad Sahai (supra), which squarely applies to this case, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation for fixation of artificial leg from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.26,00,000/-. Page8 of 12

¶12In Mohd. Sabeer (supra), the Supreme Court, following R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551, has further held with regard to non-pecuniary compensation. The relevant portion from Mohd. Sabeer (supra) is worthy of reproduction: "25. In R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest

Control

(India)

(P) Ltd. [R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held that: "9. Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance;

(ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, Page9 of 12 frustration and mental stress in life."

26. In light of the above decision of this Court and the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation to be awarded is as follows: I. Compensation for pain and suffering — Rs 2,00,000 II. Compensation for loss of amenities of life — Rs 2,00,000 III. Compensation for disability and disfigurement — Rs 2,00,000" (Emphasis supplied by this Court)

¶13Following the same, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.2.00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects and loss due to disability and disfigurement, respectively.

¶14Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced and the appellant is entitled to compensation under various heads as under: S. No. Description Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.) Compensation awarded by this Court (in Rs.) Compensation confirmed/ enhanced/ reduced/ granted 1 Medical expenses 6,92,356 6,92,356 Confirmed 2 Transportation Expenses 25,000 50,000 Enhanced 3 Extra nourishment 20,000 50,000 Enhanced 4 Attendant charges 1,00,000 1,00,000 Confirmed 5 Loss due to disability 27,21,600 27,21,600 Confirmed 6 Pain and suffering 5,00,000 5,00,000 Confirmed Page10 of 12 S. No. Description Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.) Compensation awarded by this Court (in Rs.) Compensation confirmed/ enhanced/ reduced/ granted 7 Fixation of artificial leg 3,00,000 26,00,000 Enhanced 8 Loss of amenities -NIL-2,00,000 Granted 9 Loss of marriage prospects -NIL-1,00,000 Granted 10 Loss due to disability and disfigurement -NIL-2,00,000 Granted Total 43,58,956 72,13,956 Enhanced by Rs.28,55,000

¶15In the result, a. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal for an amount of Rs.43,58,956/- is enhanced to Rs.72,13,956/-. No costs. b. The respondent/Corporation is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.72,13,956 /- (less the amount already deposited) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.1417 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Special Court, Small Causes Court, Chennai. c. On such deposit being made, the appellant is at liberty to withdraw the amount, with costs and interest, after filing a proper petition for withdrawal. d. The appellant is directed to pay Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if any, and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after receipt of Court fee. Page11 of 12 e. The appellant is not entitled to any interest for the default period in filing the above appeal, if any. 24-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nsd To

1.The II Special Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court. CMAoNo.o2596oofo2025 A.D.JAGADISHoCHANDIRAoJ. nsd CMAoNo.o2596oofo2025 24-06-2026 Page12oofo12

Page1 of 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA S. Chandru (minor) represented by next friend and natural guardian his father N. Selvam, No.11/3, Athankarai Street, Velappansavadi, Perumal Agaram, Thiruverkadu, Chennai - 077. ..Appellant(s) Vs The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai - 002. ..Respondent(s) Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the compensation awarded in the final order dated 04.01.2025 passed in M.C.O.P.1417 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Special Court, Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Ravikumar For Respondent(s): Mr.Anton Dhanasekaran Page2 of 12