C.M.A(MD)No.326 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Judgment Reserved on Judgment Pronounced on
25.03.2022 27.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A(MD)No.326 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)No.4247 of 2020
United India Insurance Company Limited,
No.3-E, Balavinayagar Kovil Street,
Thoothukudi. .. Appellant / 2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.K.Jesammal ..1st Respondent / Claim Petitioner
2.P.Lilly Pushpam .. 2nd Respondent /1st Respondent
[In respect of R2, Notice dispensed with, vide court order dated
03.01.2022 by SAIJ]
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgment, dated
31.01.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.176 of 2016, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi.
____________
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.326 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.A.Ilango
For R1 : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar
JUDGMENT
The insurance company is the appellant herein. Challenging the quantum of compensation granted in M.C.O.P.No.176 of 2016, the insurance company has filed this appeal.
2. The injured is the claim petitioner filed the above claim petition that while he was working as Operation Theatre Assistant in St.Hearts Hospital. On the fateful day [05.03.2016] at around 7.30 a.m., she was walking on the road near St.Hearts Hospital from south to north on the left hand side of the road and thereafter while she was standing on the northern side near the St.Hearts Hospital gate, at the time, the mini bus bearing Registration No.TN37 C 5542 came from the west towards east in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her due to which she sustained injury.
3. The first respondent has not adduced any contra evidence. PW1 being the injured witness is competent to speak about the manner of the ____________ Page No.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.326 of 2020 accident. The contents of Ex.P1-F.I.R., and also Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report goes to show that the accident do not happen due to the mechanical defect but due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the mini bus as could be seen from Ex.P1-F.I.R., Ex.P6-Charge Sheet and Ex.P5-rough sketch. It is also to be noted that the driver has pleaded guilty and paid fine as per the Ex.P7 judgment of the criminal Court.
4.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini bus and hence such a finding is hereby confirmed.
5.On the point of quantum of compensation rival submissions are heard.
6. At the time of the accident, PW1-injured is 48 years old and working as Assistant in Operation Theatre and was drawing Rs.12,000/-. Ex.P3-Accident Report clearly indicates the age of the injured at 48 and also filed Ex.P14-salary certificate issued by the hospital. Accordingly, ____________ Page No.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.326 of 2020 the tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that in view of the various injury sustained by the petitioner, she had suffered physically permanent disability affecting her earning capacity. Hence, having satisfied with the ratio laid down in the Rajkumar's case, the tribunal has rightly held that multiplier method has to be adopted since PW1 could not do her job as she was used to do before the accident and earning capacity was also reduced.
7. The Medical Board which examined PW1 has fixed the disability 90% after perusing Ex.P-9-discharge summary. I find that the medical board has taken all the injuries into consideration and fixed the disability at 90% and hence I find that the earning capacity of PW1 is totally reduced by 90% and hence, it is a fit case for granting future prospects also. Accordingly, notional monthly income arrived at Rs. 9850+30% = Rs.9850/- + Rs.2955/- = Rs.12805/- and the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier method as per the decision in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the same need not be disturbed. The loss of income towards 'partial permanent disability' has assessed by the ____________ Page No.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.326 of 2020 Tribunal as Rs.12805 x 12 x13 x 90% = Rs.17,97,822/- is reasonable. Hence, the award under the head 'partial permanent disability' is hereby confirmed. The award of Rs.2,70,000/- for the permanent disability granted by the tribunal hereby stands vacated. There cannot be any double compensation for the very same injury. From Ex.P9-discharge summary she was in the hospital between 05.03.2016 to 16.04.2016 and from 01.08.2016 to 16.08.2016. The award of Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the tribunal towards future earnings also stands vacated. Further, the claimant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards transportation, Rs.15,000/- for nutrition and extra nourishment and Rs.15,000/- towards attender charges. The compenstation awarded under the head 'for pain and sufferings' is reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. In total, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.18,92,822/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
8. In fine,
(i) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed in part by reducing the compensation from Rs.23,67,822/- to Rs.18,92,822/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the ____________ Page No.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.326 of 2020 date of realisation. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(ii) the appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the modified award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No. 176 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount, if any already deposited.
(iii) On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the award amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.
(iv) The Tribunal is directed to refund the excess award amount, if any, with accrued interest to the appellant/insurance company.
27.04.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No PJL ____________ Page No.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.326 of 2020 To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thoothukudi.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
____________ Page No.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.326 of 2020 RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.
PJL PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN C.M.A(MD)No.326 of 2020 27.04.2022 ____________ Page No.8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis