The Divisional Manager vs Shagul Ameed
2021 Latest Caselaw 24570 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 24570 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 December, 2021

Madras High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Shagul Ameed on 14 December, 2021

                                                                                  CMA.No.3471 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 14.12.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                              CMA No.3471 of 2021 and
                                               CMP.No.20023 of 2021

                     The Divisional Manager,
                     National Insurance Company Ltd.,
                     No.62-A, 2nd Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Street,
                     Puducherry.                                                  ... Appellant

                                                          Vs
                     1.Shagul Ameed
                     2.Kasi
                     3.Nagoor Meeran
                     4.The Divisional Manager,
                       Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                       D-126, 100 Feet Road,
                       Mudaliarpettai, Puducherry.                      ... Respondents

                     Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor

                     Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 22.3.2021 made in

                     MCOP.No.873 of 2017 on the file of Additional Motor Accidents Claims

                     Tribunal, Puducherry.

                                          For Appellant        : Mr.D.Bhaskaran



                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    CMA.No.3471 of 2021



                                                    JUDGMENT

The Insurance Company is on appeal questioning the award of the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puducherry made in MCOP.No.873 of

2017 dated 22.03.2021.

2.The injured claimant sought for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-

for the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident that occurred on

10.02.2017. According to the claimant, when he was proceeding in his Hero

Honda Passion Pro motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-AZ-6199

along the Puducherry-Marakkanam East Coast Road. The first respondent's

vehicle namely, TATA Indica car bearing Registration No.TN-07-BD-9994

was driven by its driver towing TATA Ace tempo bearing Registration No.PY-

01-AM-8786 owned by the 3rd respondent.

3.According to the claimant, the car which was towing the goods

vehicle crossed the road from west to east, all of a sudden without waiting for

the vehicles plying on the highway. The claimant, who was riding a two

wheeler lost control and hit against the goods vehicle as his efforts to stop the

vehicle did not fructify due to the sudden interruption caused by the car.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3471 of 2021

Contending that the driver of the car was solely responsible for the accident,

the claimant sought for compensation. The Tribunal considered the question

of negligence and concluded that the driver of the car was responsible for the

accident. The Tribunal concluded that the driver of the vehicle that was being

towed had no control over the vehicle and it was the driver of the car, who

should have been doubly cautious while crossing the highway towing another

vehicle.

4.The Tribunal discussed the evidence and found that there is no

evidence to show that the driver of the goods vehicle which was being towed

could have contributed to the accident. The Tribunal also held that since the

driver of the vehicle that is being towed does not have any control over the

vehicle and even if he applies brakes that will be of no consequence. On the

above findings, the Tribunal held that the appellant Insurance Company

namely, the insurer of the car is liable to pay the entire compensation. On the

quantum, the Tribunal found that the claimant is entitled to a sum of

Rs.5,68,000/- and had granted a compensation on various heads as follows:-







https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      CMA.No.3471 of 2021


                                                   Heads                     Amount
                                                                              Rs.
                                  Partial Permanent disability                        1,25,000/-
                                  Pain and suffering                                  1,00,000/-
                                  Extra nourishment                                    30,000/-
                                  Assistants                                           45,000/-
                                  Travelling expenses                                    6,000/-
                                  Medical expenses                                    1,15,000/-
                                  Future Medical expenses                              40,000/-
                                  Loss of income                                      1,07,000/-
                                                                 Total            Rs.5,68,000/-

5.Mr.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company would contended that the amount awarded for pain and suffering

and loss of income are on the higher side. As far as pain and suffering is

concerned, it is seen that there is an injury in the L1 region of the vertebra. It

is needless to point out that such injury will have a long losing effect and

requires continuous pain management. Therefore, I do not find any reason to

interfere with the quantum under the head of pain and suffering.

6.As regards loss of earning, the Tribunal has taken the income at

Rs.8,891/- on the basis of salary certificate that has been produced. In the

absence of any evidence to the contrary, I do not find any error on the part of

the Tribunal and accepting the salary certificate. Again considering the nature

of the injury, particularly injury being in the spinal column, it would have