Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Veeraiyan on 27 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.2564 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.2564 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.18374 of 2016
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
rep. by its Branch Manager,
No.6, MummyDaddy Complex, Mettu Street,
Tiruthuraipoondi Munsiff and Taluk, Town and Post. ..Appellant
Vs
1.Veeraiyan
2.Mathiyazhagan ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 29th day of April,
2015, made in M.C.O.P.No.27 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Mannargudi.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinod
For Respondents : Mr.D.Lakshmipathy for R1
R2 - Refused
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2564 of 2016
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the
Award dated 29.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Sub Court), Mannarkudi, in M.C.O.P.No.27 of 2012.
2.The Appellant Insurance Company has challenged the impugned
Award questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
as according to them, the same is excessive.
3.The Tribunal under the impugned Award directed the Appellant
Insurance Company to pay the first respondent/claimant a compensation of
Rs.2,75,800/- together with interest and costs as detailed hereunder:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Transportation 5,000
Disability (20%) 40,000
Attender charges 3,000
Loss of earning capacity 1,72,800
Pain and suffering 25,000
Extra nourishment 15,000
Medical expenses 15,000
Total Rs.2,75,800/-
4.Heard Mr.K.Vinod, learned counsel for the Appellant and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2564 of 2016
Mr.D.Lakshmipathy, learned counsel for the first respondent.
5.The main contention raised by the Appellant Insurance Company is
that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method for the
purpose of assessing compensation to the first respondent/claimant towards
loss of earning capacity.
6.The first respondent/claimant has sustained left clavicle fracture as
a result of an accident on 29.03.2011 caused by a vehicle insured with the
Appellant. The nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant
as indicated above has not been disputed by the Appellant Insurance
Company as seen from the evidence available on record.
7.The Doctor who was examined as PW2 has assessed the disability
of the first respondent/claimant at 20%. However, despite the fact that the
nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant is only left
clavicle fracture the Tribunal has erroneously adopted the multiplier
method and assessed the compensation payable to the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2564 of 2016
respondent/claimant towards loss of earning capacity at Rs.1,72,800/-. This
Court is of the considered view that the said assessment made by the
Tribunal towards loss of earning capacity is an erroneous assessment and
will have to be set aside as the first respondent/claimant is only entitled for
disability compensation based on his actual disability.
8.The Tribunal ought to have awarded only disability compensation
to the victim, but in addition to the same has also awarded compensation
towards loss of earning capacity to the first respondent/claimant which he is
not legally entitled to. However, the Tribunal failed to take into
consideration year of the accident for fixing the disability compensation.
The accident happened on 29.03.2011. The Tribunal has assessed the
disability compensation for 20% disability suffered by the first
respondent/claimant at Rs.40,000/- calculated at Rs.2,000/- per percentage
of disability which in the considered view of this Court is low and it has to
be necessarily enhanced.
9.After giving due consideration to the year of the accident, this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2564 of 2016
fixes the disability compensation of the first respondent/claimant at
Rs.60,000/- calculated at Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability instead of
Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability fixed by the Tribunal.
10.The Tribunal has also awarded a lesser compensation towards
transportation and attender charges which has to be necessarily enhanced to
Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively.
11.The Tribunal has also failed to award any compensation towards
loss of income during the period of treatment to the first
respondent/claimant. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the
first respondent/claimant, this Court fixes the same at Rs.42,000/- calculated
at Rs.7,000/- per month for a period of six months.
12.The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards
pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment charges and
Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. The same is confirmed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2564 of 2016
13.For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the impugned Award is reduced by this Court from
Rs.2,75,800 to Rs.1,72,000 as detailed hereunder:
Particulars Award Reduced/
Amount (Rs.) modified
Amount
Transportation 5,000 10,000
Disability (20%) 40,000 60,000
Attender charges 3,000 5,000
Loss of earning capacity 1,72,800 -
Pain and suffering 25,000 25,000
Extra nourishment 15,000 15,000
Medical expenses 15,000 15,000
Loss of income (Rs.7,000 x 6 - 42,000
months)
Total Rs.2,75,800/- Rs.1,72,000/-
14.The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to
Rs.1,72,000/- from Rs.2,75,800/- along with interest and costs assessed by
the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall transfer the amount lying to the credit of
MCOP.No.27 of 2012 to the bank account of the first respondent/claimant
through RTGS, within a period of one week thereafter. The Appellant
Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount if any,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2564 of 2016
deposited by them before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
pam
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Sub Court), Mannargudi.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2564 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
pam
C.M.A.No.2564 of 2016
27.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
