K.Sasirekha v. Bajaj Alliance Gen., Ins., Com., Ltd., Chennai

JUDGMENT Challenge is made by the claimant against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.805 of 2010 dated 12.08.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Special Sub Court-I, Chennai for enhancement of compensation.

¶2Claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 3 of MACT Rules claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant Sasirekha in a road accident that took place on 02.02.2010.

¶3The learned Tribunal after hearing both sides arguments and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence has passed an award for a sum of Rs.6,23,340/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of petition i.e., 11.03.2010 ( excluding the default period if any).

¶4The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently argue that the injured who was aged about 25 years at the relevant point of time on account of the accident, suffered sacrum fracture S1, S2 and S3 bilateral superior and interior pubic rami fracture: The Doctor has assessed the disability as 50%. But, the tribunal has taken only 20% which is on the lower side. No amount was granted for transport expenses. A amount granted for Pain and Suffering is less and prayed for enhancement of compensation.

¶5Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would strenuously contend that PW2 Dr.K.Mathiyazhan has assessed the disability as 50% which is on the higher side and the tribunal has taken for the whole body 20% and granted compensation, which is a well reasoned order and it needs no interference.

¶6It can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that while she was travelling as a pillion rider along with her two daughters and the vehicle was ridden by her friend, a Tipper lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the two wheeler. Due to the said accident she sustained fractures. It is seen from Ex.P.2 Discharge Summary that the claimant suffered sacrum fracture S1, S2 and S3 bilateral superior and interior pubic rami fracture. She undergone surgery for the pelvis fracture, external fixation was done and anterior vaginal wall repair was done. Skin grafting was also done for her. She was in hospital from 05.02.2010 to 11.03.2010 as an inpatient. She was stated to be working as a Tailor and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Sacrum is a large, triangular bone at the base of the spine. She had fracture of pelvic as well as sacrum bone.

¶7From the medical records, it could be seen that the appellant suffered fracture in Pelvic Bone. For fracture of thigh bone, external fixator was fixed. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that because of the effects of fracture, she was not in a position to work as she did before she claims that she finds difficult even to stand. As she had laceration in the interior vagina wall, repairing was done. It is the evidence from Dr.P.W.2 Dr.Mathiyazhan that " ,uz;L ,Lg;g[fspYk; vYk;g[ Kwpt[ Vw;gl;lJ/ nkYk; ,uz;L bjhilfspYk; rij fpHpe;J gyj;j fhak; Vw;gl;lJ/ Fnshgy; kUj;Jtkidapy; 19 ehl;fs; cs;nehahspahf rpfpr;ir bgw;whh;/ m';F mtUf;F ,uz;L ,Lg;g[fspy; Vw;gl;l vYk;g[ Kwpt[f;F btspg;g[wj;jpy; ghpnrhjidapy; ,Lg;g[ gFjfspy; typa[k; ,Wf;fKk; Vw;gLfpwJ/ mirt[fs; ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mth; jw;nghJ Fdpe;J epkput[k;. jiyapy; mkut[k;. fodkhd bghUl;fis J}f;ft[k; rpukg;gLfpwhh;/ mtuhy; ,Lg;g[ gFjpia 40 ofphpf;F nky; mirf;f Koatpy;iy/ CLfjph; glj;jpy; vYk;g[fs; khwhf Toa[s;sJ bjhpfpwJ/ bjhil gFjpfspy; fhak; Vw;gl;l ,lk; tpfhuj; jd;ika[ld; fhzg;gLfpwJ/

¶8The Doctor has assessed the disability as 50% and the Tribunal has taken disability for the whole body as 20%. If a person suffers a fracture over the hip, sacrum as well as thigh bone at the same time, then it would have been very difficult for her even to attend her normal work. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 581 (SC), the Supreme Court has cautioned the tribunal while assessing disability, the Court has to look into seriousness of the injuries, fracture and effects and impact of the same. The appellant/claimant had suffered fracture over hip, sacrum and thigh bone. Therefore, it is common understanding that she would find it very difficult to do her normal work as well as tailoring work. The Tribunal has fixed the notional income at Rs.4,500/-and taken the disability as 20% by adopting multiplier-18. Taking into account the above said details in order to grant just compensation the disability is taken as 38% instead of 20% and the loss of disability is reworked as follows; Rs.4,500/-x 12 x 18 x 38% = Rs.3,69,360/-

¶9An amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted towards attender charges. Towards Loss of amenities and for the pain and sufferings undergone and of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- in addition to the amount already granted. Towards Extra Nourishment and for transport expenses, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted in addition to the amounts already granted. In respect of other aspects, the amounts awarded appears to be reasonable and needs no interference.

¶10The Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reworked as tabulated below: Sl. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or enhanced or granted or reduced For Loss of Earning Capacity Rs.1,83,600/- Rs.3,69,360/- Enhanced For

Transport Expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Enhanced Sl. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or enhanced or granted or reduced

¶3For Extra Nourishment Rs.20,000/- Rs.30,000/- Enhanced For Disfiguration Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Confirmed For Loss of Amenities and Expectation of Life Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/- Enhanced For Medical Treatment Rs.3,89,000/- Rs.3,89,000/- Confirmed For Pain and Sufferings Rs.40,000/- Rs.60,000/- Enhanced For Attender Charges --- Rs.15,000/- Granted Total Rs.6,92,600/- Rs.9,58,360/- 90% of the compensation which

the petitioner

is entitled Rs.6,23,340/-Rs.8,62,524/-Rounded off to Rs.8,62,500/-

¶11Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.6,23,340/- to Rs.8,62,500/- which would carry interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of petition ie., 11.03.2010 ( excluding the default period if any).

¶12In the result,

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

(ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.6,23,340/- to Rs.8,62,500/-.

(iii) The 3rd respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount i.e.,Rs.8,62,500/- (less the amount already deposited if any) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per from the date of numbering of petition ie., 11.03.2010 ( excluding the default period if any). till the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.805 of 2010 on the file of thethe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ( Special Sub Judge I dealing with MCOP Cases) Chennai within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

(iv) On such deposit being made, the appellant / claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same on filing of cheque petition. The claimant is directed to pay the requisite Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required. The Tribunal below shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of the certified copy showing proof of payment of Court fee by the claimant.

31.08.2023 Vv Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To

¶1The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ( Special Sub Judge I dealing with MCOP Cases) Chennai.

¶2Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., No.25/26, Prince Towers, 4th Floor, College Road, Nungambakkam. Chennai-600 006.

¶3The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104. R. KALAIMATHI,J. Vv C.M.A.No.508 of 2017

31.08.2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 31.08.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI C.M.A.No.508 of 2017 K.Sasirekha ... Appellant vs. 1. K.Rajendran 2. S.Siva 3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., No.25/26, Prince Towers, 4th Floor, College Road, Nungambakkam. Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 12.08.2014 made in MCOP.No.805 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ( Special Sub Court dealing with MCOP Cases) Chennai. For appellant : Mr.C.Munusamy For respondents : R1 and R2 Exparte : Mr.G.Vasudevan for R3