Madras High Court
M/S.New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Venkatesan ... 1St on 19 April, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.2463 and 2464 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.Nos.2463 and 2464 of 2015
and
MP Nos.1 and 1 of 2015
M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Divisional Office
Sri Vari Shopping Mall,
2nd Floor,
No.2/91,
New Bus Stand Road,
Meyyanur,
Salem - 636 004. .... Appellant in both appeals
Versus
1. Venkatesan ... 1st Respondent in
CMA No.2463 of 2015
1.Pachaiyappan … 1st Respondent in
CMA No.2464 of 2015
2. P.Thirumalai ... 2nd Respondent in both appeals
Prayer in CMA No.2463 of 2015 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and
decree passed in M.C.O.P. No.2900 of 2013 on 16.02.2015 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge), Krishnagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2463 and 2464 of 2015
Prayer in CMA No.336 of 2016 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and
decree passed in M.C.O.P. No.2901 of 2013 on 16.02.2015 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge), Krishnagiri.
For Appellant in both appeals : Mr.J.Chandran
For Respondent in both appeals : Mr.M.Selvam
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the common award dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge), Krishnagiri in MCOP
Nos.2900 of 2013 and 2901 of 2013.
2. The appellant has challenged the impugned award primarily
questioning the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal as
according to them, the Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier
method in assessing the compensation payable to the respective
claimants.
3. The first respondent in CMA No.2463 of 2015 is the claimant in
MCOP No.2900 of 2013 and the first respondent in CMA No.2464 of
2015 is the claimant in MCOP No.2901 of 2013. Both the claimants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2463 and 2464 of 2015
sustained injuries as a result of a collision between the two wheeler in
which they were travelling as a rider and a pillion rider respectively with
a car insured with the appellant.
4. Heard Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel for the appellant
/Insurance Company and Mr.M.Selvam, learned counsel for the
respondents 1 and 2.
5. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award as
well the materials and evidence available on record before the Tribunal.
6. The accident happened on 07.02.2013 and the first respondent
(Venkatesan) in CMA No.2463 of 2015 was aged 30 years and the first
respondent in CMA No.2464 of 2015 was aged 36 years at the time of
the accident.
7. The first respondent in CMA No.2463 of 2015 had sustained the
following injuries, as a result of the accident :
1. Laceration right foot 4 x 1 x 1 cm
2. Abrasion right knee 2 x 2 cm
3. Tender over Left fore arm
4. Right Leg C Ankle Medial Mallolus (undisplaced), as per X-ray
5. Left Wrist - Distal radius (undisplaced) as per X-ray
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2463 and 2464 of 2015
8. The first respondent in CMA No.2464 of 2015 had sustained the
following injuries as a result of the accident :
1. Soft tissue injury of Face, Neck & Chest.
2. Fracture of Shaft of Right Femur, Distal Third Tibia and Fibula Fracture.
9. Before the Tribunal both the claimants have filed documents
which were marked as Exs.P1 to P13, which included the wound
certificate, Discharge summary, CT Scan, X-rays and disability
certificates issued by the Doctor. Three witnesses were also examined on
the side of the claimants which included the respective claimants and
their Doctor Dr.M.Devendran as PW3. However on the side of the
appellant / Insurance Company, neither any document was filed nor any
witness was examined.
10. As seen from the discharge summary, the respective claimants
were hospitalised for a long period of time. The claimant Venkatesan
was aged 30 years and was self employed making pots, allied articles and
technician of handicrafts & Mason. In his claim petition, he has claimed
that he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. at the time of the accident.
However, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of Venkatesan
as Rs.5000/-. No contra evidence was also produced by the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2463 and 2464 of 2015
Insurance Company before the Tribunal to disprove the contention of the
claimant that he was earning Rs.10,000/-p.m. Therefore, after giving due
consideration to the year of the accident, this Court is of the considered
view that fixation of Rs.5000/-p.m. as notional income of Venkatesan,
1st respondent in CMA No.2463 of 2015 cannot be considered to be
excessive as alleged by the appellant.
11. The Doctor has also taken into consideration the nature of
injuries sustained by Venkatesan as indicated above and has assessed the
disability of Venkatesan at 55%. However, the Tribunal has reduced the
disability to 45%. This Court after giving due consideration to the nature
of the injuries sustained by Venkatesan is of the considered view that
fixation of 45% disability by the Tribunal cannot be considered to be
excessive and hence, the same is confirmed by this Court. The Tribunal
after giving due consideration to the grievous injuries sustained by
Venkatesan has also come to the conclusion that Venkatesan has lost his
earning capacity due to the injuries and accordingly has applied the
multiplier method for assessing the loss of earnings. This Court is in
agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Hence, the contention of
the appellant that multiplier method ought not to have been adopted is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2463 and 2464 of 2015
rejected by this Court. The Tribunal has also applied the correct
multiplier of 15 after giving due consideration to the age of Venkatesan.
12. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/-
towards pain and suffering; Rs.25,000/- towards Nutrition and Transport;
Rs.5,000/- towards Attender charges; Rs.25,000/- towards partial loss of
income and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and discomfort of life
and an overall compensation of Rs.5,40,000/- has been awarded to
Venkatesan, the claimant in MCOP No.2900 of 2013. This Court is of
the considered view that considering the year of the accident and the
nature of injuries sustained by Venkatesan and the period of his
hospitalisation, the overall compensation of Rs.5,40,000/- awarded to
him cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the appellant.
Hence CMA No.2463 of 2015 filed by the appellant does not deserve any
merit and the same will have to be dismissed.
13. Insofar as CMA No.2464 of 2015 is concerned, the claimant is
Pachiappan, who was the rider of the two wheeler and the Tribunal under
the impugned common award directed the appellant to pay him a
compensation of Rs.12,52,772/- for the injuries sustained by him as a
result of the accident caused by a vehicle insured with the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2463 and 2464 of 2015
14. In the claim petition, Pachiappan has claimed that he was self
employed making pots and allied articles and Technician of handicrafts
and Mason, aged 36 years and was earning Rs.10,000/-p.m., at the time
of the accident. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly
income of the Pachaiappan only at Rs.5,500/-. The accident happened in
the year 2013 and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
fixation of notional monthly income of Pachiappan at Rs.5,500/- cannot
be considered to be excessive as alleged by the appellant. Pachiappan
has sustained grievous injuries as a result of the accident which are stated
supra.
15. Before the Tribunal, the disability certificate of Pachiappan
discloses that he suffered 70% disability. However, the Tribunal has
reduced the same to 65%. The Tribunal after giving due consideration
to the grievous injuries sustained by Pachiappan based on the materials
available on record which included the wound certificate, Discharge
summary, CT Scan, medical bills, X-rays and disability certificates came
to the right conclusion that Pachiappan suffered loss of earnings due to
the injuries sustained by him as a result of the accident. This Court is in
agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2463 and 2464 of 2015
adopted the correct multiplier of 15 after giving due consideration to the
age of Pachiappan at the time of the accident. The loss of earnings fixed
by the Tribunal at Rs.6,43,500/- for Pachiappan is also a correct
assessment and does not call for any interference by this Court.
16. The Tribunal has also awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/-
towards pain and suffering; Rs.30,000/- towards nutrition and
transportation; Rs.30,000/- towards Attender charges; Rs.30,000/-
towards Partial loss of income; Rs.2,66,272/- towards medical expenses
based on bills produced by Pachiappan; Rs.1,00,000/- towards future
medical expenses and Rs.75,000/- towards loss of amenities & enjoyment
of life and has in all granted a total compensation of Rs.12,52,272/- to
Pachiappan, which in the considered view of this Court cannot be
considered to be excessive, considering the nature of injuries sustained
by Pachiappan. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the
Tribunal has erroneously adopted the multiplier method for Pachiappan
and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is
excessive is rejected by this Court and thus the appeal filed by the
appellant does not deserve any merit and the same will have to be
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2463 and 2464 of 2015
17. For the foregoing reasons this Court does not find any infirmity
in the findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no merit in these
appeals and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire award amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest from
the date of claim petition till the date of realization, less the amount, if
any, already deposited to the credit of respective M.C.O.P. Nos.2900 and
2901 of 2013 respectively, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Special Sub Judge), Krishnagiri, 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 in CMA No.2463 and 2464 of
2015, through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
19.04.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2463 and 2464 of 2015
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
To
1. The Special Sub Judge
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 104.
C.M.A.Nos.2463 and 2464 of 2015
19.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
