R.Ameena Begum v. C. Samaskanthan

Judgment This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in MCOP No.7713 of 2016 dated 08.11.2022, wherein the claimant is seeking for enhancement of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.

¶2The Appellant was riding a two wheeler on 16.08.2016 from Chitlapakkam to Sanatorium and at about 3.30 hours, the offending vehicle which is a car came from behind and it was driven in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of which, the car hit the two wheeler and the claimant was thrown out of the vehicle and she sustained grievous head injuries. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for compensation.

¶3The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Page3 of 8

¶4Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.1,99,119/- (rounded off to Rs.1,99,2000) under various heads as follows :- Sl.No. Compensation awarded under the head Amount (in Rs.)

¶1Disability Rs.1,05,000/-

¶2Medical expenses Rs. 26,919/-

¶3Loss of Income Rs. 8,000/-

¶4Pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/-

¶5Transportation expenses Rs. 5,000/-

¶6Nutrition Expenses Rs. 10,000/-

¶7Damages to clothes Rs. 1,000/-

¶8Attender charges Rs. 3,200/-

¶9Loss of Amenities Rs. 15,000/-Total Rs. 1,99,119/-Rounded off Rs.1,99,200/-

¶5The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has filed this Appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶6Heard Mr.R.Kalai Arasan, learned counsel for appellant/claimant and Mr.S.Srinivasan, learned counsel for 2nd respondent.

¶7This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either Page4 of 8 side and the materials available on record.

¶8This Court also carefully went through the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶9The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the claimant was working as an Advocate clerk and due to the accident, she suffered head injury /frontal and temporal bone fracture / right temporal edema and as a result, she had to undergone treatment as an in patient for 8 days and the Medical board assessed the disability as Neurosurgical /ENT hearing default /Headache and fixed the percentage of disability as 21%.

¶10The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal instead of applying the multiplier method considering the functional disability involved, erroneously applied the percentage method.

¶11The other ground raised is that the compensation fixed under the various heads is on the lower side and it requires interference.

¶12Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the Tribunal had taken into consideration the fact that the claimant did not suffer any functional disability and hence, the Tribunal has rightly applied the Page5 of 8 percentage method. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and proper and it does not require the interference of this Court.

¶13In the case in hand, the claimant was working as an Advocate Clerk. It is clear from the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board (Ex.C-1) that the claimant suffers from hearing defect. For an Advocate clerk, suffering from hearing disability, necessarily results in functional disability and a person who suffers such disability, normally will not be preferred in an Advocate Office. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered this issue and applied the Multiplier method.

¶14In the light of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to apply the multiplier method and the compensation under the head of disability is calculated as follows :-Disability = Rs.8,000 x 12 x 13 x 21% = Rs.2,62,080/-

¶15The Tribunal had fixed the loss of income at Rs.8,000/- and this Court is inclined to enhance the same to Rs.16,000/-.

¶16The Tribunal had fixed the compensation under the head of Page6 of 8 nutrition expenses at Rs.10,000/- and this Court is inclined to enhance the same to Rs.15,000/-.

¶17The Tribunal had fixed the compensation under the head of Attender Charges as Rs.3,200/- and this Court is inclined to enhance the same to Rs.10,000/-.

¶18In the light of the above discussion, this Court modifies the compensation in the following manner: Sl.No. Compensation awarded under the head Amount by the Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount awarded by this Court (in Rs.)

¶1Disability Rs.1,05,000/-Rs.2,62,080/-

¶2Medical expenses Rs. 26,919/-Rs. 26,919/-

¶3Loss of Income Rs. 8,000/-Rs. 16,000/-

¶4Pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/-Rs. 25,000/-

¶5Transportation expenses Rs. 5,000/-Rs. 5,000/-

¶6Nutrition Expenses Rs. 10,000/-Rs. 15,000/-

¶7Damages to clothes Rs. 1,000/-Rs. 1,000/-

¶8Attender charges Rs. 3,200/-Rs. 10,000/-

¶9Loss of Amenities Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.1,99,119/- Rs.3,75,999/- Rounded off Rs.1,99,200/- Rs.3,76,000/- Page7 of 8

¶19The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs..1,99,200/- is enhanced to Rs.3,76,000/-. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, less the amount already deposited, together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. Insofar as the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,76,800/- is concerned, the appellant/claimant will not be entitled for interest for the period of delay of 567 days as was ordered by this Court in C.M.P.No.23209 of 2024, dated

09.06.2026. Insofar as the enhanced compensation is concerned, the deficit court fee, if not paid, shall be paid by the appellants. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered.

¶20In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. No costs. 29-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order RKA To, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai CMAoNo.o1898oofo2026 N.ANANDoVENKATESHoJ. RKA CMAoNo.o1898oofo2026 29-06-2026 Page8oofo8

Page1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH R.Ameena Begum W/o. Rajamohamed Nasar, 1/271, Thaniyalakshmi Street Ext., Lakshmi Nagar, Mudichur, Chennai 600 048. ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. C. Samaskanthan S/o. Chinnasamy, No. B-25. Asian Towers, 5th Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83. (1st Respondent remained ex-parte) 2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., No.1, II Floor, Subramaniam Building, Club House Road, Chennai 2. ..Respondent(s) To set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2022 made in MACTOP No.7713 of 2016, on the file of the IV Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Chennai. For Appellant(s): M/s.R.Kalai Arasan M. Mahendran For Respondent(s): R1-Exparte M/s.S.Srinivasan For R2 Page2 of 8