Madras High Court
The National Insurance Company ... vs J.Ringu on 4 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.2424 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.2424 of 2016 &
CMP.No.17056 of 2016
The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.751, Mount Road,
Chennai – 6. ... Appellant
Vs
1.J.Ringu
(Minor represented by her father Jaburaram)
2.Thalapathi Kumara Vickram. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the decree and judgment passed in
MACTOP.No.57 of 2014 dated 21.07.2015 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, 5th Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Ms.N.B.Surekha
For Respondent 1 : Mr.P.Chinnaraj
For Respondent 2 : Not ready in notice
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2424 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(Heard through Video conferencing)
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the impugned award dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (5th Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in
MCOP.No.57 of 2014.
2. The Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award only
on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
the first respondent/claimant is excessive.
3. Heard Ms.N.B.Surekha, learned counsel for the Appellant
Insurance Company and Mr.P.Chinnaraj, learned counsel for the first
respondent/claimant. The second respondent has remained exparte both
before the Tribunal as well as this Court.
4. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the Appellant
Insurance Company to pay the first respondent/claimant a compensation of
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2424 of 2016
Rs.4,07,000/- as detailed hereunder:
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Medical Expenses 2,000/-
Attender Charges 5,000/-
Disability Compensation 4,00,000/-
Total 4,07,000/-
5. The learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance company would
submit that the Tribunal has erroneously applied the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun vs. National Insurance
Company and another reported in 2013 SC SCJ 2445 while assessing the
disability compensation payable to the first respondent/claimant. She would
submit that the injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant will not
enable her to claim compensation as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mallikarjun's case referred to supra. She would submit that the
first respondent/claimant has sustained only one fracture namely shaft of
femur of the right. She would also submit that excepting for filing of OP
chit, which has been marked as Ex.P6 before the Tribunal, the first
respondent/claimant has not filed any other document to prove that due to
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2424 of 2016
the injuries sustained by her, she was hospitalised for a long period of time.
6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant
Insurance Company, though the first respondent/claimant has suffered only
one fracture as seen from the disability certificate which has been marked as
Ex.P13 before the Tribunal, the compensation assessed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mallikarjun's case referred to supra cannot be made
applicable to the facts of the instant case. In Mallikarjun's case referred to
supra, the accident victim was hospitalised for 58 days continuously and he
has sustained multiple grievous injuries and he had also undergone several
surgeries. But in the case on hand, excepting for only one fracture and when
the accident victim has also not filed sufficient documents to prove that she
was hospitalised for the said fracture, the Tribunal ought not to have applied
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallikarjun's case
referred to supra. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallikarjun's case
referred to supra will not apply to the facts of the instant case.
7. In view of the above, this Court is constrained to refix the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2424 of 2016
compensation in the following manner:
(a) The accident happened in the year 2013. The Doctor has assessed
the disability of the first respondent/claimant at 35%. For an accident of the
year, it is settled practice followed by the Courts that the disability
compensation will have to be assessed at Rs.3,000/- per percentage of
disability. In the instant case, the first respondent/claimant has suffered 35%
disability and hence, the disability compensation is assessed by this Court at
Rs.1,05,000/- calculated at Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability for 35%
disability.
(b) The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards
medical expenses which is supported by bills (Ex.P9) and the same is
confirmed by this Court.
(c) The Tribunal has also awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/-
towards attender charges which in the considered view of this Court is low
and the same has to be necessarily enhanced. Accordingly, the compensation
towards attender charges is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- by this Court.
(d) After giving due consideration to the nature of injuries sustained
by the first respondent/claimant as stated supra, this Court awards a
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2424 of 2016
compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.13,000/-
towards transportation, Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of amenities and Rs.5,000/- towards Future Medical Expenses.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified as follows:
Heads Amount Amount Awarded by
awarded by the this Court
Tribunal (Rs.)
(Rs.)
Disability 4,00,000/- 1,05,000/-
Medical Expenses 2,000/- 2,000/-
Attender charges 5,000/- 20,000/-
Pain and suffering -- 40,000/-
Transportation -- 13,000/-
Extra nourishment -- 15,000/-
Loss of amenities -- 50,000/-
Future medical -- 5,000/-
expenses
Total 4,07,000/- 2,50,000/-
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by
refixing the compensation payable by the Appellant Insurance Company to
the first respondent/claimant. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the modified award amount of Rs.2,50,000/- after deducting the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2424 of 2016
amount already deposited if any, together with interest from the date of
claim till the date of deposit and costs to the credit of MCOP.No.57 of 2014
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. On such deposit being made, since the first respondent/claimant
is a minor, the Tribunal shall deposit the amount lying to the credit of
MCOP.No.57 of 2014 in fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalised Bank
till she attains the age of majority. If the minor attains the age of majority, it
is open for her to file a formal petition to declare her as major. The father of
the minor/first respondent is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued once
in six months for the welfare of the minor.
10. Since the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by
this Court and if the Appellant Insurance company has already deposited
the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal, it is open for the Appellant
Insurance company to file an appropriate application to withdraw the excess
amount deposited by them before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.08.2021
nl
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2424 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To
1. The 5th Small Causes Court, Chennai
2. Record Section,
High Court of Madras.
C.M.A.No.2424 of 2016
04.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
