LexS. PERUMAL versus K. AMBIKA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 2 S.C.R. 264 S. PERUMAL v. K.AMBIKA&ANR. (Civil Appeal No.2377 of 2015) FEBRAURY 24, 2015 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 168 - Compensation - Enhancement of- Claimant-poultry labourer suffered injuries in a motor accident -Award of compensation of Rs. 25, 3001- C with interest of 7. 5% per annum - Upheld by the High Court - On appeal held: Injured claimant is to be compensated for his permanent disability and also for loss of earning due to his inability - Courts below erred in brushing aside the 0 evidence of the doctor who examined the claimant and the disability certificate - Tribunal erred in discarding radiologist report of the hospital on the ground that the claimant did not plead about his treatment in the hospital - Considering the nature of occupation and 25% disability, compensation E enhanced to Rs. 4, 43, 5001- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The tribunal and the High Court were not F right in brushing aside the evidence of doctor who examined the claimant and the (disability certificate). Tribunal and High Court committed an error in holding that the claimant has sustained only simple injuries. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the G Constitution, though this Court would not normally re- appreciate the facts and evidence, however, when the courts below erred in ignoring material evidence, this Court can always re-appreciate the evidence in order to render justice to the parties. [Para 13) [269-C-D] H 264 S. PERU MAL v. K. AMBIKA 265 1.2 The injured claimant is to be compensated for A his permanent disability and also for loss of earning due to his inability, the whole idea is to put claimant in the same position as he was prior to the accident. The claimant was a poultry labourer, he would have earned not less than Rs.4,500/- per month. Considering the B nature of occupation of the claimant and the 25% disability, the compensation of Rs.25,300/- awarded to the claimant is enhanced to Rs.4,43,500/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the claim . petition. [Paras 14, 15, 16) (269-E-F; 272-A-B, D-E] C Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar 2011 ACJ 1 (SC) - referred to. Case Law Reference 2011ACJ1 (SC) Referred to. Para 14. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2377 of 2015 D From the Judgment and Order dated 27 .02.2013 of the E High Court of Judicature at Madras in C. M. A. No. 554 of 2013 P. Sharath, Abhishek Atrey for the Appellant. S. L. Gupta, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Ram Ash ray for the F Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant in the instant appeal is seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to him in M.C.O.P. No.597/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Namakkal. G H 266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A 3. The brieffacts of the case are:- On 18.11.2009, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN 27 0907 owned by Respondent No.1, while driven by his driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed TVS 50 (bearing Registration No. TN 28 X 4892) driven by the appellant from behind, due to which appellant 8 sustained in the eye-brow, chest and multiple injuries all over the body. The second respondent herein is an insurance company with which the vehicle involved in the accident was insured. c 4. Appellant filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident. The tribunal upon consideration of the rival contentions, vide order dated 9.09.2011 awarded compensation of Rs.25,300/- D alongwith interest at the rate of 7 .5% per annum. The appellant being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A. No.554/2013, wherein vide impugned judgment dated 27.2.2013, the High Court refused to interfere with the findings E of the tribunal on the ground that the appellant has suffered only simple injuries. 5. Contention of the appellant is that at the time of the accident he was working as a labourer in a Poultry Farm and F was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident has caused multiple rib fractures to the appellant which has severely affected appellant's ability to work in the Poultry Farm or to do any physical work. Thus, appellant has con
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.