Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jothi Vs. Jawahar and Another

Jothi vs Jawahar and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Nov 22, 2016
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1187276

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CMA (MD) No. 54 of 2007
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jothi

Respondent

Jawahar and Another

Excerpt

.....about 04.30 p.m on t.b.road near m.g.r. colony at tiruchendur. the injured victim filed an application in mcop.no.274 of 2004 before the motor accident claims tribunal, 1st additional sub judge, tirunelveli, and the tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded rs.16,000/- as total compensation with interest at 9% per annum. not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed this appeal, for enhancement, on the ground that the tribunal ought to have calculated the loss of income by applying the multiplier method. further, the tribunal had not considered the partial permanent disability and a meagre compensation was awarded under the head, pain and sufferings. 2. the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company opposed this appeal, by stating that it is a case of fracture in the left leg and the injured at the time of accident was 22 years and got cured completely and therefore, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and no further consideration for enhancement of compensation is necessary. 3. considering the rival contentions of the learned counsels both for the appellant and the 2nd respondent insurance company, this court is of the view that the appellant/claimant was 22 years of age at the time of accident and it was a fracture over left leg. this apart, the fracture got cured and the appellant is performing his normal day-to-day affairs and therefore, it cannot be considered that he sustained permanent disability. but, the only point to be considered in this appeal is that the tribunal has not awarded any reasonable amount for pain and suffering undergone by the appellant/claimant. 4. though the appellant claimed rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, the tribunal has awarded only rs.2,500/- towards pain and suffering. definitely, for a fracture, the appellant would have taken treatment for about 20 days and the tribunal ought to have awarded rs.10,000/-. hence, this court is inclined to award.....

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2005 passed in MCOP.No.274 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (1st Additional Sub Judge), Tirunelveli.)

JUDGMENT

1. It is the case of an injury caused due to the accident took place on 20.09.1998 about 04.30 p.m on T.B.Road near M.G.R. Colony at Tiruchendur. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.274 of 2004 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, and the Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.16,000/- as total compensation with interest at 9% per annum. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed this appeal, for enhancement, on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have calculated the loss of income by applying the multiplier method. Further, the Tribunal had not considered the partial permanent disability and a meagre compensation was awarded under the head, pain and sufferings.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company opposed this appeal, by stating that it is a case of fracture in the left leg and the injured at the time of accident was 22 years and got cured completely and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and no further consideration for enhancement of compensation is necessary.

3. Considering the rival contentions of the learned counsels both for the appellant and the 2nd respondent insurance company, this Court is of the view that the appellant/claimant was 22 years of age at the time of accident and it was a fracture over left leg. This apart, the fracture got cured and the appellant is performing his normal day-to-day affairs and therefore, it cannot be considered that he sustained permanent disability. But, the only point to be considered in this appeal is that the Tribunal has not awarded any reasonable amount for pain and suffering undergone by the appellant/claimant.

4. Though the appellant claimed Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,500/- towards pain and suffering. Definitely, for a fracture, the appellant would have taken treatment for about 20 days and the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. Consequently, the total award is modified as hereunder:-

Grievous injuries=Rs.10,000/-
Simple injuries=Rs. 3,000/-
Pain and suffering=Rs.10,000/-
Transportation=Rs. 500/-
-----------------------
Total=Rs.23,500/-
(Less) Amount awarded
by the Tribunal=Rs.16,000/-
-----------------------
Enhanced amount=Rs. 7,500/-
-----------------------
5. Enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of realisation. The 2nd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the modified compensation now determined by this Court with proportionate accrued interest and costs, to the credit of the claim petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant, is permitted to withdraw the same, through RTGS, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal.

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial