Madras High Court
Branch Manager vs R.Palanichamy : R1/Petitioner on 1 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :01.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
C.M.A(MD)No.1101 of 2018
and
CMP(MD)No.11266 of 2018
Branch Manager,
Tuticorin Branch,
M/s.Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.,
3rd Floor, Tripura Arcade,
No.75, Thiruvenkadam Road,
Palayamkottai,
Thiruneveli District. : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.R.Palanichamy : R1/Petitioner
2.T.Raja : R2/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated
18.07.2018 made in MCOP No.948 of 2014 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel
For 1st Respondent : Mr.T.Amjadkhan
for M/s.APN Law Associates
For 2nd Respondent : No appearance
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
JUDGMENT
Challenge made in this appeal is to the award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court) Madurai, in
MCOP No.948 of 2014, dated 18.07.2018.
2.The brief facts of the case are that on 08.01.2014 am,
when the claimant was driving the Eicher Lorry TN59-AF-1435
towards Tuticorin from Madurai, on the Madurai-Tuticorin National
Highways Four Way Track, the Innova Car TN-69-Q-1940 towards
Madurai came in a heavy speed, suddenly lost control, hit on the
median, breached, took off and flew about 20 feet and thereafter,
smashed on the front right portion of the Eicher Lorry TN-59-
AF-1435, which was driven by the claimant. In the accident, the
driver of the Innova Car died on the spot, while the claimant
sustained fracture injuries. The injured claimant filed a claim
petition seeking compensation of Rs.24,63,334/- on the ground that
the driver of the Car was responsible for the accident.
3.The claimant has stated that at the time of the accident, his
age was 56 and he was working as a Driver and was earning Rs.
30,000/- per month. A criminal case in Crime No.6 of 2014 was
registered by Ettayapuram Police.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4.The claim was opposed by the appellant Insurance
Company disputing the manner of accident and their liability to pay
compensation.
5.The Tribunal, upon consideration of oral and documentary
evidence, came to the conclusion that the driver of the Car was
responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.
2,99,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. Aggrieved by the award of the
tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company is before this court.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
7.It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the quantum of award is on the higher side, so the
quantum is to be reduced. On the other hand, the learned counsel
for the 1st respondent/claimant submitted that the award is
reasonable, which does not warrant any interference of this court.
8.It is seen from the records that at the time of accident, the
offending vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance
http://www.judis.nic.in
Company. Hence, the Appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay
the compensation to the claimant. In this case, PW1 is the injured
as well as the eye witness to the accident. A criminal case was
registered against the driver of the Car. Ex.P1 FIR stands
registered based on the complaint given by PW1. Ex.P7 charge
sheet would show that after investigation, the police filed a final
report against the Driver of the Car. As the Driver of the car is no
more, the fate of investigation also abated. PW1 has given evidence
stating that he was first admitted to the Government Hospital,
Tuticorin and thereafter, he was taking treatment in Madurai
Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology and he underwent
surgery, fixing of plates, Bolts etc. and he spent Rs.1,75,000/-
towards medical expenses.
9.In this case, the claimant was directed to appear before the
Medical Board to assess the disability. The Medical Board on
examination of the claimant, assessed his disability at 30% and
issued Ex.C1. Based on the same, the Tribunal has come to the
conclusion that the claimant has suffered 30% disability and
awarded Rs.1,20,000/- under the head.
http://www.judis.nic.in
10.It is to be noted here that in this case, the Doctor has
assessed the disability of the claimant as 30%. As per the judgment
reported in 2013(2) TAN MAC 583 (National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. G.Ramesh), for 1% of disability, the
claimant is entitled to Rs.3,000/-. Hence, it is held that the
claimant is only entitled Rs.90,000/- for 30% disability at the rate of
3,000/- for 1%.
11.In this case, to prove the nature of injuries and treatment,
the claimant filed Exs.P8, P11, P21 and P22. On perusal of the
above records, it reveals that the claimant had sustained fracture
injuries and took treatment in the private hospital. It is to be noted
that in this case, the claimant has not produced the originals of
Exs.P9 and P10 and he only produced the Xerox copy of Exs.P9 and
P10. The counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant lost the
originals Exs.P9 and P10. To prove it, no complaint was given
before the concerned police. No proper document was filed.
Hence, it is held that the claimant failed to prove that Exs.P9 and
P10 were lost. Hence, the argument put forth on the side of the
claimant stating that he lost Exs.P9 and P10 and hence, he
produced the Xerox copy of Exs.P9 and P10 is not at all acceptable.
http://www.judis.nic.in
12.However, considering the injuries sustained by the
claimant and the treatment taken by the claimant, it reveals that he
will spend some amount towards medical expenses. Hence,
considering the treatment undertaken by the claimant, this court
finds that the claimant is entitled to only Rs,46,000/- towards
medical expenses. Accordingly, Rs.96,000/- awarded by the tribunal
towards medical expenses is reduced to Rs.46,000/-. In sofar as the
other heads, the award of the tribunal are reasonable and hence,
they are confirmed. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the
tribunal is recalculated as follows:-
Head Award of the Award of this
Tribunal court
Disability for 30% (Rs. 1,20,000/- 90,000/-
3,000/- x 30%)
Pain and suffering 30,000/- 30,000/-
Nourishment 7,000/- 7,000/-
Attending charges 4,000/- 4,000/-
Loss of income during 40,000/- 40,000/-
treatment period
Damages to clothes 1,000/- 1,000/-
Transportation 2,000/- 2,000/-
Medical expenses 95,000/- 46,000/-
In total 2,99,000/- 2,50,000/-
http://www.judis.nic.in
13.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed and the award of Rs.2,99,000/- is reduced to Rs.
2,50,000/-. The interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum awarded
by the tribunal is maintained. The Appellant Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the modified award amount together with
accrued interest and costs, less the amount already deposited,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. On such compliance, the claimant is permitted to
withdraw the modified amount, less the amount already withdrawn
without filing any formal petition before the tribunal. Excess
amount if any shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance
company. No costs. .
01.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/
The Special Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
T.KRISHNAVALLI.J.,
er
C.M.A(MD)No.1101 of 2018
01.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
