Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Palani on 29 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.666 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.M.A.No.666 of 2017 and
C.M.P.No.3720 of 2017
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Cuddalore. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.M.Palani
2.K.Sivalingam
(He was set exparte by the
Claims Tribunal) ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgment dated
28.07.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.993 of 2003 by the Additional District
Court, FTC No.2, Cuddalore (Before District Court OP No.1054/2001 & Sub
Court OP No.878/2001, Cuddalore) on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan
For Respondents : No appearance (R1)
R2-Exparte vide on batta.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.666 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the
quantum of compensation granted vide award dated 28.07.2005 made in
M.C.O.P.No.993 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Court, FTC No.2, Cuddalore.
2. The claimant, aged 27 years, a driver, earning a sum of Rs.4,500/-
per month met with an accident on 02.03.2001, due to which he sustained
injury in left eye lid. Hence, he filed a claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.993 of
2003, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court,
FTC No.2), Cuddalore, seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the auto belonging to the second respondent and directed the
Appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Fifty Six Thousand only) as compensation to the claimant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.666 of 2017
4.Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the claims
tribunal, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present
appeal.
5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
made several submissions, he restricted his argument on the point to the
extent that the Claims Tribunal while appling the multiplier method, the
Court ought to have awarded compensation only to the extent of disability
assessed by the Doctor, but though the Doctor has assessed disability @ 15%
the Court below has not taken the same into consideration while awarding the
compensation towards loss of earning power and therefore the same is liable
to be set aside.
6. Though notice was ordered to the first respondent through paper
publication and the name of the claimant/first respondent printed in the
causelist, there is no representation on behalf of the first respondent/claimant.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company.
Perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.666 of 2017
8. It is the case of the injury. The Doctor assessed disability @ 15%.
The Court below applied the multiplier method and awarded compensation
for the disability. While applying the multiplier method, the Court below
should have awarded compensation to the extent of functional disability. As
Doctor assessed disability @ 15%, even assuming the entire 15% is taken as
functional disability, the Tribunal should have awarded to the said extent of
15%. In the present case, without application of mind, the Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs.1,56,000/- towards Loss of earning power, by taking a sum of
Rs.1,000/- as notional income and by multiplying 12 and by adopting
multiplier 13. The Court ought to have awarded only to the extent of 15%
disability. On the other hand without application of mind, the tribunal has
awarded compensation without taking into consideration of the functional
disability. Therefore, the said amount of compensation awarded towards loss
of earning power has to be redetermined by this Court .
9. The age of the victim, at the time of accident is 27 years and the
multiplier applicable is 17. However, the Court below applied the multiplier
13, which is not correct. The Tribunal fixed notional income of the injured @
Rs.1,000/- per month. However, no addition was awarded towards future
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.666 of 2017
prospects. Hence, this Court is inclined to determine the notional income of
the injured as Rs.1,000/- including future prospects. Hence, loss of earning
power is redetermined by this Court as follows:
Rs.1000x12x17x15/100 = Rs.30,600/-
10. Since, this Court awarded compensation for the disability by taking
entire 15% as functional disability, there is no necessity to award
compensation towards permanent disability. Hence, the same is liable to be
set aside. Accordingly, the compensation awarded towards permanent
disablity is set aside.
11.Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as
follows:
S.No Description Amount Amount awarded by this Court
awarded by (Rs)
Tribunal
(Rs)
1. Loss of earning 1,56,000/- 30,600/-
power
2. Medical 3,760/- 3,760/-
expenses
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.666 of 2017
S.No Description Amount Amount awarded by this Court
awarded by (Rs)
Tribunal
(Rs)
3. Permanent 5,000/- Nil-
disability
Total Rs.1,64,760/- Rs.34,360/-
9.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,64,760/- is hereby reduced
to Rs.34,360/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit, thereafter the rate of interest awarded by the
Bank for the sum of Rs.34,360/- from the date of deposit till the date of
disbursement. The Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation awarded by this Court with interest and costs, if not deposited,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.993 of 2003. On such deposit, the Tribunal is
directed to transfer the entire award amount to the appellant by way of RTGS,
within a period of three weeks from the deposit or from the date of receipt of
the Bank details obtained from the claimant or application made by the
claimant for withdrawal, whichever is later. If the Insurance Company had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.666 of 2017
already deposited the entire award amount ordered by the Claims Tribunal,
the Appellant/ Insurance Company is directed to withdraw the balance
amount. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
29.04.2021
arr
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1. The Additional District Court, FTC No.2, Cuddalore
2 .District Court & Sub Court, Cuddalore)
3.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.
4.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.666 of 2017
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
arr
C.M.A.No.666 of 2017
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
