Renganathan Vs. the Managing Director,

Renganathan vs The Managing Director,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 07, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/965824

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/965824
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: P.Devadass
Decided On: Jan 07, 2013
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

Renganathan

Respondent

The Managing Director,

Excerpt

.....considering the arguments advanced at the bar, the materials on record and the impugned award of the tribunal, let us dispose of this appeal today.5. the road accident was on 10.06.2001. at about that time, the injured was 62 years old. p.w.2 determined his disability at 45% and issued him ex.p.7 disability certificate. this has been accepted by the tribunal. the appellant is a milk vendor and an agriculturist. in the circumstances, granted him only rs.45,000/-. it is on the lower side. in the facts and circumstances, we raise it to rs.90,000/- on the basis of rs.2,000/- per percentage. towards pain and suffering only rs.5,000/- has been awarded. in the facts and circumstances, it is increased to rs.10,000/-. the injured has to take lot of extra-nourishment to regain his health. however, no amount is awarded under the head extra- nourishment. thus, rs.5,000/- is awarded under this head. towards transportation charges, no amount was awarded. under this head, rs.3,000/- is awarded. the injured having sustained 45% disability could not function as before. there is loss of amenity of life. under this head he is awarded rs.10,000/-.7. in the result, the appeal is allowed in part. the compensation awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to rs.1,54,838/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till deposit and costs. respondent shall deposit the entire amount, less amount, if any already deposited within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. on such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, less amount, if any already withdrawn. no costs. sj to the motor accidents claims tribunal, (the chief judicial magistrate), ramanathapuram.

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

07. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS C.M.A.(MD) No.866 of 2010 Renganathan ... Appellant/Claimant Vs The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Karaikudi. ... Respondent/Respondent Prayer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2003 dated 31.01.2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram. !For Appellant ... Mr.S.Ramesh ^For Respondent ... No appearance ***** :JUDGMENT 1 The injured in a road accident, seeks enhancement of compensation amount.

2. On 10.06.2001, the road accident took place. In this accident, the appellant sustained multiple injuries. Totally the Tribunal awarded him Rs.86,838/-.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Doctor's disability determination has been accepted by the Tribunal. However, it awarded only Rs.45,000/- towards disability. The learned counsel cited UNITED INDIA INSURANCE Co. HOSUR Vs. CHINNARAJ & OTHERS (2008 (1) TNMAC

8) and submitted that under similar circumstances the Court awarded disability compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. Further, the learned counsel would contend that various other items of compensation has been omitted by the Tribunal.

4. When this appeal came up for hearing on the previous hearings there was no representation for the respondent. In the circumstances, on 21.12.2012, the appeal has been posted today for orders. Today also there is no representation for the respondent. In the circumstances, considering the arguments advanced at the bar, the materials on record and the impugned award of the Tribunal, let us dispose of this appeal today.

5. The road accident was on 10.06.2001. At about that time, the injured was 62 years old. P.W.2 determined his disability at 45% and issued him Ex.P.7 disability certificate. This has been accepted by the Tribunal. The appellant is a milk vendor and an agriculturist. In the circumstances, granted him only Rs.45,000/-. It is on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances, we raise it to Rs.90,000/- on the basis of Rs.2,000/- per percentage. Towards pain and suffering only Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. In the facts and circumstances, it is increased to Rs.10,000/-. The injured has to take lot of extra-nourishment to regain his health. However, no amount is awarded under the head extra- nourishment. Thus, Rs.5,000/- is awarded under this head. Towards transportation charges, no amount was awarded. Under this head, Rs.3,000/- is awarded. The injured having sustained 45% disability could not function as before. There is loss of amenity of life. Under this head he is awarded Rs.10,000/-.

7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,54,838/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till deposit and costs. Respondent shall deposit the entire amount, less amount, if any already deposited within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, less amount, if any already withdrawn. No costs. sj To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (The Chief Judicial Magistrate), Ramanathapuram.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2013 Same Parties Renganathan vs The Managing Director, Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge P.Devadass