C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
& C.M.P.No.13493 of 2016
National Insurance Company Limited,
No.751, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. ... Appellant
Versus
1. G.Ravi
S/o Gopalakrishnan.
2.S.Balakrishnan,
S/o Sivashankar ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and to set
aside the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.
No.372 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II
Court of Small Causes), Chennai, and reduce the award amount.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For Respondents : Ms.A.Subadra
for Ms.M.Mala for R1
R2-Notice served
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/National Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, challenging the award dated 26.02.2016 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.372 of 2014.
2. The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award only on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
3.The Tribunal in the impugned Award directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the first respondent/claimant the compensation of Rs.13,25,200/- as detailed hereunder.
Heads Amount awarded by
the Tribunal
Transportation, Rs. 50,000/-
nourishing food and
miscellaneous expenditure
Medical Expenses Rs. 3,06,000/-
Attender charges Rs. 14,000/-
Damages for pain, Rs. 50,000/-
suffering and trauma
Disability Rs. 1,95,000/-
Loss of earning during Rs. 30,000/-
treatment period
Loss of earning capacity Rs. 6,55,200/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.13,25,200/-
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
4.Heard Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned Standing counsel for the appellant and Ms.A.Subadra, learned counsel for Ms.M.Mala, learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant.
5. This Court has perused the materials and evidence available on record before the Tribunal.
6.The first respondent/claimant has sustained the following injuries on 11.12.2013 caused by a vehicle insured with the appellant :-
"Sustained grievous head injuries, mandible fracture, Pan Facial Fracture, Head and Facial injury, chest injury, aspiration pneumonia and Left Zygomatic arch Fracture and Segmental fracture of mandible of left side and grievous injury all over the body."
7.The nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant has not been disputed by the appellant/Insurance Company before the Tribunal. However, the appellant/Insurance Company has disputed only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
8. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant has filed 16 documents, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P16 and two witnesses were examined on his side viz, the first respondent/claimant himself as PW1 and the Doctor, who examined him as PW2. However, on the side of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was filed before the Tribunal.
9.The Doctor (PW2), who examined the first respondent/claimant has assessed the disability of the first respondent/claimant at 65%. The Doctor has also in his Disability Certificate stated that due to the injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant, he has suffered hearing loss. The first respondent/claimant was hospitalised for a period of 14 days in the Government Hospital, Pondicherry, and MIOT Hospital, Chennai. The period of hospitalisation has also not been disputed by the appellant/ Insurance Company. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- towards disability calculating Rs.3,000/- per percentage for 65% disability assessed by the Doctor. This Court is of the considered view that the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant as referred to supra would certainly entitle him to get compensation by 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016 adoption of multiplier method. The assessment of disability by the Doctor(P.W.2) at 65% is not on whole body disability. This Court is of the considered view that the whole body disability of the first respondent/claimant has to be assessed but an accurate assessment cannot be made by this Court. However, after giving due consideration to the nature of the injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant as well as the period of hospitalisation and after giving due consideration the disability certificate issued by the Doctor(P.W.2), this Court deems it fit to assess the whole body disability of the first respondent/claimant at 25%.
10.The first respondent/claimant was a Milk Vendor, aged about 45 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has assessed the notional monthly income of the first respondent/claimant at Rs.7,500/-. The accident happened in the year 2013. Since no documentary evidence was produced by the first respondent/claimant before the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that the assessment of the notional monthly income of the first respondent/claimant at Rs.7,500/- is the correct assessment.
5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
11.The first respondent/claimant is also entitled for loss of future prospects in view of the grievous injuries sustained by him as detailed supra. After giving due consideration to the avocation and his age, this Court awards loss of future prospects at 30% and after adding the loss of future prospects, the monthly income is assessed by the Court at Rs.9,750/- [(Rs.7,500/-x30/100=Rs.2,250/-) (Rs.7500/-+Rs.2250/-= Rs.9,750/-)].
12.Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads viz., transportation, medical expenses and pain and suffering are concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the assessment made by the Tribunal under those heads is just compensation and does not call for any interference. However, the Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation towards attender charges and loss of amenities. This Court, therefore, enhanced the compensation towards attender charges at Rs.24,000/- and loss of amenities from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.
6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
13.Since this Court adopted the multiplier method for assessing the loss of earning power for the first respondent/claimant, he is not entitled for the disability compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,95,000/-, as it will amount to duplication. Accordingly, the amount awarded under the head disability at Rs.1,95,000/- by the Tribunal is set aside. Similarly, the first respondent/claimant is also not entitled for loss of earning during treatment awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.30,000/- and the same is set aside.
14. The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards future medical expenses. When the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant was given due consideration, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards future medical expenses. After giving due consideration to the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant, this Court awards Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses to the first respondent/claimant.
15.For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the first respondent/claimant is reduced from Rs.13,25,200/- 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016 to Rs.9,00,500/- as detailed hereunder.
Heads Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
Loss of earning Rs. Rs.6,55,200/- Rs. 4,09,500/-
Transportation, nourishing Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
food and miscellaneous
expenditure
Medical Expenses Rs. 3,06,000/- Rs. 3,06,000/-
Attender charges Rs. 14,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
Damages for pain, suffering Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
and trauma
Disability Rs. 1,95,000/- ----
Loss of earning during Rs. 30,000/- ----
treatment period
Future medical expenses ----- Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
Total Rs.13,25,200/- Rs. 9,00,500/-
16. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company stands partly allowed by reducing the compensation from Rs.13,25,200/- to Rs.9,00,500/- as indicated above. No costs. Connected C.M.P.No.13493 of 2016 stands closed.
17. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount as assessed by this Court together with interest at 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, less the amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.372 of 2014 on the file of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the first respondent/claimant, through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter. The requisite Court fee, if any has to be paid by the appellant/Insurance Company before receiving the copy of this Judgment.
01.10.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order raa To
1. The Judge, II court of Small Causes, Motor accident Claims Tribunal, II court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 104.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
raa C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016 01.10.2021 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/