IN THE COURT OF THE VI JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

(MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL)

CHENNAI
PRESENT: THIRU. S. MUTHU MURUGAN, B.A., B.L., LL.M.,
VIth JUDGE(FAC)
Tuesday, this the 13th Day of August 2024
MCOP No. 4647/2017

CNR No. TNCH09-006767-2017

Sundaravadhanam
Aged about 53 years,
S/o.Periyasamy,
No.57,5th Street,EB Colony,
Adambakkam,Chennai-88. …Petitioner

Vs.
1. R.K.Rakesh
No.17/2,New Boag Road,
T.Nagar,Chennai-17.

2.The Manager,
The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Motor III party Claim Office,
Dare House 2nd floor,
No.2,N.S.C.Bose Road,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents

This petition came up on 20.06.2024 for final hearing before me in the

presence of M/s.Victory Associates, Counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, Counsel for the 2nd respondent but the 1st respondent
called absent and set exparte and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the
case records and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court
delivered the following.
 2 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

AWARD

This petition has been filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988
claiming a compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/- with interest and costs.

2. The averments in the petition, in brief, are as follows:

The petitioner submits that, on 25.04.2017 at about 14.30 hrs when the
petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg. No. TN 22 CQ 4171 at Guindy
Thiru. Vi. ka industrial estate near B15, 16 building junction, at that time the Tata
407 van bearing Reg. No. TN 09 D 3299 driven in rash and negligent manner
came in dangerous speed dashed against the petitioner motorcycle caused
grievous injuries. The accident happened due to the Tata van driver so the
respondents being the owner and insure of that van are liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner.

3. The averments in the counter filed by the 1st respondent is as follows:

The first respondent denied the petition averments except those that are
specifically admitted by them. The first respondent denied the age, occupation
and monthly income of the petitioner, also denied the injuries, period of treatment
and damages to the petitioner. The first respondent denied the manner of accident
alleged in the claim petition and stated that the bike rider was negligent to cause
this accident. In any event the compensation amount claimed by the petitioner is
very high and the van was insured with the second respondent and having all
documents hence the second respondent company alone liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner. Therefore the first respondent prayed to dismiss
the claim petition.
 3 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

4. The averments in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent is as follows:

The second respondent denied the petition averments except those that are
specifically admitted by them. The company denied the age, occupation and
monthly income of the petitioner also the place, date and time of accident, the
nature of injuries, damages to the property, period of treatment, medical expenses
and alleged disability of the petitioner. The compensation amount claimed by the
petitioner is excessive and has no basis. The averments with respect of the
accident denied and stated the accident happened due to the negligence of the
petitioner hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Evidence:

In evidence the petitioner examined as PW1 and marked twenty one

documents as Ex. P1 to P21 with this the petitioner side evidence was closed.

Then Dr.Velmurugan Assistant Professor in Government Royapettah

hospital examined as CW1 and marked one document as Ex.C2.

On the second respondent side no witness examined and no documents

marked with this both side evidence was closed.

6. The Points for determination are:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the 1st respondent Tata Ace van
driver ?
2) Whether the 1st respondent Tata Ace van driver was having
 4 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

valid driving license and whether the said vehicle was

covered under valid insurance and proper documents, as
contemplated under the M.V. Act at the time of accident?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation if so,
what should be the quantum of compensation, and by
whom it is payable?

7. ANSWER FOR POINT No.1:

7.1. The petitioner submits that, on 25.04.2017 at about 14.30 hrs when
the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg. No. TN 22 CQ 4171 at
Guindy Thiru. Vi. ka industrial estate near B15, 16 building junction, at that time
the Tata 407 van bearing Reg. No. TN 09 D 3299 driven in rash and negligent
manner came in dangerous speed dashed against the petitioner motorcycle caused
grievous injuries.

7.2. With respect to this accident police complaint was lodged by one
Sudhakar to Guindy Police Station. On which the Ex. P1, FIR was registered in
FIR No.291/2017 u/s. 279, 337 IPC against the 1 st respondent Tata Ace van
driver. But the 1st respondent has not come forward to contest this petition as
against the FIR (or) accusation of the petitioner and the second respondent side
did not adduce any evidence to disprove the negligence of the 1 st respondent Tata
Ace van driver. Therefore, this court is of the view that the accident has happened
due to the rash and negligence of the 1 st respondent Tata Ace van driver.
Accordingly, the point is decided.
 5 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

8. ANSWER FOR POINT No.2:

In this point it has to be ascertain that whether the 1 st respondent Tata Ace
van driver had valid driving license at the time of accident, in evidence the
driving license of the 1st respondent Tata Ace van driver was not marked. Further
the registration and insurance certificate of the van also not marked, however the
second respondent side has not disputed those documents. Therefore, this court is
of the view that the Tata Ace van involved in the accident was under the cover of
insurance at the time of accident and all documents are in order. Accordingly, the
point is decided.

9. ANSWER FOR POINT No.3:

9.1. As decided in the above points the accident happened due to the rash
and negligent driving of the 1st respondent Tata Ace van driver resulted the
petitioner sustained right front temporo parietal extradural haematoma with left
temporal hemorrhagic contusion. Further, he took treatment at first in balaji
hospital as per Ex.P2 Accident Register and then treated at SIMS
Hospital,Vadapalani as inpatient from 25.04.2017 to 15.05.2017 for 21 days as
per Ex.P5 discharge summary. The petitioner referred to medical board and his
disability was fixed as 95%. However, considering the nature of injuries and
recovery the functional disability fixed as 65%. Further, considering the nature of
injuries, treatment, disability and in view of the Honble Supreme Court of India
Judgment in Rajkumar vs Ajaykumar reported in 2011 ACJ 1 (SC) this tribunal
inclined to adopt multiplier method.
 6 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

9.2. In this process it is necessary to fix the monthly income of the injured.
The petitioner alleged as at the time of accident he was working at L.R.Maligai
shop at Adambakkam and earned Rs.8,15,366/-per year marked as Ex.P9 and the
L.R.Maligai shop registration Certificate and license, Ex.P10 to P17 income tax
returns form. The age of the petitioner stated as 53 years at the time of accident,
and in the Ex.P21 Aadhar card of the petitioner year of birth was mentioned as
1964 considering the same his age fixed as 53 years at the time of accident. As
per the IT returns relevant period total income was Rs.7,20,000/- so the monthly
income of the petitioner arrived as Rs.60,000/- but the grocery shop may be
running by the family members so 1⁄4 of the income taken as loss of income
which is Rs.15,000/- this amount fixed as monthly income of the injured. Thus,
inclined to award the compensation under the following heads in multiplier
method.

i) Loss of earning capacity

In view of the above discussion this court fixed the functional disability of
the petitioner as 65% and to adopt the multiplier method fixed his income as
Rs.15,000/- per month.

Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported

in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 in Pranay Sethi case the future prospectors for the age
group of above 50-60 for self employed job is 10%. So, the income of the
petitioner to be added with = Rs. 1,500/- (Rs. 15,000x 10/100) thus the total
income arrived Rs. 16,500/-.
 7 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla

Verma Vs. Delhi Transport corporation and others reported in 2009 (2)
TNMAC (1) the multiplier for the age group of 51-55 is M-11. Therefore, the
loss of earning capacity of the petitioner is Rs. 16,500/- x 12 x 11 x 65/100=
Rs.14,15,700/- awarded under this head.

ii) Pain and suffering

Due to the accident the petitioner was sustained grievous injury took
treatment at first in balaji hospital as per Ex.P2 Accident Register and then
treated at SIMS Hospital,Vadapalani as inpatient from 25.04.2017 to 15.05.2017
for 21 days as per Ex.P5 discharge summary. So till the healing that injury he
would have suffered the pain and not able to work properly due to the injury
hence under this head this court inclined to award Rs. 50,000/-.

iii) Medical Expenses

The petitioner for his injury took treatment at first in balaji hospital as per
Ex.P2 Accident Register and then treated at SIMS Hospital,Vadapalani as
inpatient from 25.04.2017 to 15.05.2017 for 21 days as per Ex.P5 discharge
summary. But no medical bills marked so no amount awarded under this head.

iv) Attender Charges

As stated supra the petitioner took treatment at first in balaji hospital as per
Ex.P2 Accident Register and then treated at SIMS Hospital,Vadapalani as
inpatient from 25.04.2017 to 15.05.2017 for 21 days as per Ex.P5 discharge
 8 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

summary. So, during the time, a person would have stayed and assisted him
hence a sum of Rs.10,500/- awarded under this head.

v) Transport Charges

The petitioner after met the accident took treatment at first in balaji
hospital as per Ex.P2 Accident Register and then treated at SIMS
Hospital,Vadapalani as inpatient from 25.04.2017 to 15.05.2017 for 21 days as
per Ex.P5 discharge summary. So, he would have gone to hospital for many times
but no transport bills marked. However considering the treatment period, distance
to hospital a sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded under this head.

vi) Loss of Income

The petitioner stated that he was L.R.Maligai Shop at Adambakkam and

earned Rs. 8,15,366/- per annum but in evidence documents marked as per Ex.9
L.R.Maligai shop registration certificate and license and Ex.P10 to Ex.P17
Income Tax returns form. Hence, this court considering his age was 53 at the time
of accident and prevailed working atmosphere in the year 2017, fixed his notional
income as Rs.15,000/- per month. Further during the treatment time and then at
least for three months he would have not able to work thereby lost his income so
this court inclined to award Rs.45,000/- (3x 15,000) under this head.

vii) Loss of Amenities

In view of the fact that the petitioner took treatment at first in balaji
hospital as per Ex.P2 Accident Register and then treated at SIMS
Hospital,Vadapalani as inpatient from 25.04.2017 to 15.05.2017 for 21 days as
 9 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

per Ex.P5 discharge summary. Hence, during that time certainly, he would have
loss amenities by not able to walk and perform his day today work properly so
under this head this court inclined award Rs.15,000/-.

viii) Extra nourishment

During the period of treatment and the subsequent days he would have to
take nutritious food to restore his body to normal condition so under this head
this court inclined to award Rs.15,000/-.

The summing up of the award amounts under the various heads are as follows,

Loss of earning Rs.14,15,700/-

capacity

Pain and Suffering Rs. 50,000/-

Loss of Income Rs. 45,000/-

Medical expenses Nil

Attendant charges Rs. 10,500/-

Transportation Rs. 10,000/-

Loss of Amenities Rs. 15,000/-

Extra Nourishment Rs. 15,000/-

TOTAL Rs. 15,61,200/-

 10 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

10. In the result, this petition is allowed that,

(i) An award of Rs. 15,61,200/- (Rupees fifteen Lakhs sixty one thousand and
two Hundred only) is passed in favor of the petitioner with interest at 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition, i.e 10.08.2017 to till the date of payment
payable by the second respondent with costs.

(ii) There will be no interest for the default period if any.

(iii) The compensation amount shall be deposited into this court Bank Account in
the name of Registrar (MACT), Court of Small Causes, Chennai Account
No. 7103261207 IFSC No. IDIB000M157 Indian Bank, Madras High Court
Branch, Chennai within two months.

(iv) Considering the long pending of this OP and age of the petitioner, on deposit
the petitioner permitted to withdraw the entire amount on separate
application.

(v) On petition for payment of the above said initial amount excluding, costs,
Advocate fees and bank charges due and payable to the petitioner/claimant
which shall be transferred to petitioner/claimants bank account
no:50100117435400, HDFC Bank Ltd, Adambakkam Branch,IFSC
No.HDFC0001858 through RTGS (or) NEFT.
 11 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

(vi)
The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 375/- towards Court fee. As per this
award, the Court fee is Rs.14,984.50/-. The Advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.22,612/-. The Additional Court fee of a sum of Rs. 14,609.50/- shall be
paid within 10 days.

Dictated by me to the typist and she directly typed it in the computer after
corrections pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 13 th day of August
2024.

(S. MUTHUMURUGAN)
VIth JUDGE(FAC)
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
CHENNAI

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER: -

SL.No. DATE NAME OF THE WITNESSES REMARKS

PW1 29.01.2020 Sundaravadhanam (Petitioner) Ex.P1-Ex.P21
and
22.09.2021
 12 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

LIST OF EXHIBITS FOR THE PETITIONER: -

Sl No. Date Document Particulars Document

Type
Ex.P1 25.04.2017 First Information Report Photocopy

Ex.P2 25.04.2017 Accident Register Photocopy

Ex.P3 -- It may be concern letter Original

Ex.P4 -- SIMS Hospital Interim summary Original

Ex.P5 25.04.2017 to SIMS Hospital Discharge summary Photocopy

15.05.2017
Ex.P6 -- Prescriptions Original

Ex.P7 -- MD NECT Brain Report Original

Ex.P8 -- Scan Report Original

Ex.P9 -- L.R.Maligai shop Registration Photocopy

certificate and license

Ex.P10 -- Income Tax returns form assessment Photocopy

year 2008-2009

Ex.P11 -- Income Tax returns form assessment Photocopy

year 2009-2010

Ex.P12 -- Income Tax returns form assessment Photocopy

year 2010-2011

Ex.P13 -- Income Tax returns form assessment Photocopy

year 2011-2012
 13 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

Ex.P14 -- Income Tax returns form assessment Photocopy

year 2013-2014

Ex.P15 -- Income Tax returns form assessment Photocopy

year 2015-2016

Ex.P16 -- Income Tax returns form assessment Photocopy

year 2016-2017

Ex.P17 -- Income Tax returns form assessment Photocopy

year 2017-2018

Ex.P18 -- Driving license of the petitioner Photocopy

Ex.P19 -- Pan card of the petitioner Photocopy

Ex.P20 -- Bank pass book 1st page of the Photocopy

petitioner

Ex.P21 -- Aadhar card of the petitioner Photocopy

COURT WITNESS:

S.No. DATE NAME OF THE WITNESSES REMARKS

CW1 23.02.2024 Dr.Velmurugan Ex.C2

 14 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE 2nd RESPONDENTS:Nil

LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE 2nd RESPONDENTS: Nil

COURT DOCUMENT:

Sl No. Date Document Particulars Document Type

Ex.C1 -- Disability certificate of the petitioner Original

issued by Medical Board.

Ex.C2 -- Note prepared by other doctors Photocopy

(S. MUTHUMURUGAN)
VIth JUDGE(FAC)
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
CHENNAI-104.

OTHER PARTICULARS

Date of filing of the petition 16.08.2017

Date of Award 13.08.2024

Amount Claimed under Compensation Rs. 3,00,00,000/-

Amount Awarded as Compensation Rs. 15,61,200/-

Total Court Fees Rs. 14,984.50/-

The Court Fee already paid Rs. 375/-

Balance Court Fee to be paid Rs. 14,609.50/-

 15 MCOP.No. 4647/2017

Costs List

Cost Particulars Amount

Stamp duty for Award Amount Rs. 14,984.50

Vakalath Rs. 5.00

Preparation of Summon Batta Charges Rs. 40.00

Advocate Fees Rs. 22,612.00

TOTAL Rs. 37,641.50/-(Rounded to 37,642/-)

(Sd/-)
(S. MUTHUMURUGAN)
VIth JUDGE(FAC)
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
CHENNAI-104.