Madras High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Mr.Nagappan on 1 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.87 of 2017
& C.M.P.No.692 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date: 01.02.2021
Coram::
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.No.87 of 2017
&
C.M.P.No.692 of 2017
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited.,
No.1, Subramaniyam Building,
Club House Road, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Appellant
/versus/
1. Mr.Nagappan,
2. S.Elango, ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act,
1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.5819 of 2011 dated
19.08.2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small
Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.E.Rajadurai,
for Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan
For R1 : Ms.A.Subadra for
Ms.Malar
For R2 : No appearance
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.87 of 2017
& C.M.P.No.692 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the claimant.
2.On 11.11.2010 at about 11.30 hours, the first respondent while riding his
motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-32-R-4951 from Panrutti to Thirukovilur, a lorry
bearing Reg.No.TN-31-AC-7779, owned by the 2nd respondent herein and insured
under the appellant herein, dashed against the motorcycle rider and caused grievous
injury to him. Claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on the
premises that the claimant was earning Rs.500/- per day as mason and due to the
injury caused, he has lost his income during the treatment period and also future
prospects.
3.Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed counter stating that the
First Information Report against the lorry insured under them is a false complaint.
The claimant alone is solely responsible for the accident and therefore, he is not
entitled for any compensation.
4.Before the Tribunal, three witnesses were examined. In support of the claim
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.87 of 2017
& C.M.P.No.692 of 2017
petition, 11 exhibits were marked. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence held
that the fracture of skull and fracture of both bone in left leg, has caused 30%
functional disability to the claimant and therefore, it is a fit case to apply the
multiplier. Taking Rs.9000/-p.m., as notional income of the claimant, based on the
disability certificates Exs.P8 and P9 issued by PW-2 and PW-3, the tribunal had
assessed the functional disability at 25% and adding 30% towards future prospects,
Therefore, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,60,500/- as compensation with
interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
5.In the appeal, the Insurance Company has primarily assailed the award of the
Tribunal on the ground that the fixation of notional income at Rs.9,000/- is excessive
and exorbitant. The claimant has not produced any evidence to show his income as
mason. Further, for the injury case the Tribunal ought not to have awarded any
future prospects. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company that the injury sustained by the claimant does not warrant the
multiplication of multiplier when there is no loss of earning capacity.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the claimant/1st respondent contended that
the award passed by the Tribunal is fair and just. In fact, no order was passed by the
appellant for pain and suffering and loss of amenity.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.87 of 2017
& C.M.P.No.692 of 2017
7.On considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that in the absence of
proof for income and being case of injury, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the
monthly income as high as Rs.9,000/- and added 30% for future prospects. At the
same time, the Tribunal has also omitted to award compensation for pain and
suffering and loss of amenity. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is
modified and scaled down as below:-
Sl. Particulars Award passed by Award passed by Enhanced/
No. the Tribunal this Court Reduced/
(Rs.) (Rs.) Confirmed/
Awarded/
Omitted
1. Medical expenses 5,000-00 5,000-00 Confirmed
2. Loss of income for 1 9,000-00 8,500-00 Reduced
month (treatment period)
3. Loss of earning capacity 5,26,500-00 3,82,500-00 Reduced
(9000+30%FPx12x15x25 (8500x12x15x25%)
%)
4. Transportation 5,000-00 5,000-00 Confirmed
5. Extra nourishment 5,000-00 5,000-00 Confirmed
6. Attender charges 5,000-00 5,000-00 Confirmed
7. Damages to clothes and 5,000-00 1,000-00 Reduced
articles
8. Pain and Sufferings NIL 25,000-00 Awarded
9. Loss of Amenities NIL 20,000-00 Awarded
Total 5,60,500-00 4,57,000-00 Reduced
8.The award passed by the Tribunal is modified and scaled down from
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.87 of 2017
& C.M.P.No.692 of 2017
Rs.5,60,500/- to Rs.4,57,500-00 with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date
of petition till the date of realisation.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
submitted that the entire award with accrued interest has already been deposited in
the Tribunal. Therefore, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the
modified award amount with interest on filing appropriate application, less the
amount already withdrawn by him. The Insurance Company is permitted to
withdraw the excess amount lying in the deposit, less the modified award amount.
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No order
as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
01.02.2021
Index :Yes/No
ari
To:-
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.87 of 2017
& C.M.P.No.692 of 2017
ari
C.M.A.No.87 of 2017
01.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
