Madras High Court

The National Insurance Company ... vs O.B.Ranjini on 23 February, 2021

                                                                                  C.M.A.No.3014 of 2013

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 23.02.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

                                                    C.M.A.No.3014 of 2013
                                                            and
                                                      M.P.No.1 of 2013

                The National Insurance Company Limited,
                Kumaran Illam, Green field,
                Uthagamandalam, Nilgiris District.                                 ..Appellant


                                                           Versus

                1.O.B.Ranjini
                  S/o.J.Bheman

                2.S.Kuberan
                  S/o.Sellan                                                    ..Respondents

                Prayer:            Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                Vehicles Act, against the decree and judgment passed in MACT.O.P.No.75 of
                2011, dated 10.01.2013, on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims
                Tribunal, 3rd Additional District Court, Erode at Gobichettypalayam.


                                    For Appellant      : Ms.N.B.Surekha

                                    For Respondents : Mr.MA.P.Thangavel [for R1]
                                                      R2 – Notice served
                                                        *****

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                1/10
                                                                                  C.M.A.No.3014 of 2013

                                                 JUDGMENT

The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the

judgment and decree dated 10.01.2013 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.75 of 2011 on

the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District

Court, Erode at Gobichettypalayam.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the

second respondent was set exparte.

3. The case of the first respondent/claimant is as follows:

On 06.04.2011 at about 20.00 hours, while the first respondent/claimant

was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-43-B-8992 on the

Kothagiri to Berakani Main Road near Madiyada Koil on the extreme left side

of the road, a Jeep bearing Registration No.TN-43-A-2055, belonging to second

respondent and insured with the appellant insurance company, which came in

the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

first respondent/claimant, due to which the first respondent/claimant sustained

grievous injuries on the tongue, both elbows, left leg, chest and injuries all over

the body. Immediately, the first respondent/claimant was admitted at

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.3014 of 2013

Government Hospital, Kotagiri and for further treatment at Ganga Hospital.

The first respondent/claimant was working as a mason and was earning a sum

of Rs.9,000/- p.m. Since the first respondent/claimant suffered permanent

disability, he is not able to carry on his avocation as he was doing before.

Hence, the first respondent/claimant filed a claim petition seeking

compensation in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in

the accident.

4. Resisting the claim made by the first respondent/claimant, the

appellant insurance company has filed a detailed counter statement inter alia

stating that the accident did not occur in the manner as projected by the first

respondent/claimant. They had also denied the age, occupation and income of

the first respondent/claimant. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the claim

petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, to prove his case, the first respondent/claimant

was examined as PW-1 and one Dr.Thambiraj was examined as PW-2 and 13

documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P13. On the side of appellant Insurance

Company, none were examined and no exhibits were marked.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.3014 of 2013

6. On appreciation of materials, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the

accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep bearing

Registration No.TN-43-A-2055 and held that the appellant Insurance Company,

as insurer of the said vehicle, is liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, the

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,22,793/- as compensation. The break-up details

are as follows:

                             Sl.       Compensation awarded under the           Amount
                             No.                   head                         (in Rs.)
                               1.    Loss of income                                2,94,030/-
                                     (2970 * 12 * 15 * 55/100)
                               2.    Medical Bills                                   18,263/-
                               2.    Future Medical expenses                          5,000/-
                               3.    Pain and suffering and nutrition                 5,000/-
                               4.    Loss of clothes                                       500/-
                                                                        Total      3,22,793/-

The said sum was directed to be paid together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from

the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the

appellant Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel

appearing for second respondent Insurance Company.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.3014 of 2013

8. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company contended that

the first respondent/claimant has suffered 55% disability in the accident. The

Tribunal has awarded compensation by adopting multiplier method. According

to the appellant Insurance Company multiplier cannot be adopted, in the

present case, to award the compensation to the appellant. According to the

learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, the first

respondent/claimant has not placed any material or evidence to establish that

due to the said injury, there is a loss of future prospects and income. Unless the

first respondent/claimant has established that due to the injuries sustained in the

accident, he has suffered loss of future prospects, the application of multiplier

is unwarranted.

9. Learned counsel fairly submitted that a reasonable compensation

amount may be fixed based on the disability suffered by the first

respondent/claimant. Therefore, the said award passed by the Tribunal is liable

to be modified.

10. Learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant submitted that the

first respondent/claimant has suffered 55% disability in the accident and he was

unable to walk, stand and do work due to the accident. The first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.3014 of 2013

respondent/claimant was a mason and he is suffering due to the said disability.

In fact, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very much on the lower

side and hence, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

11. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the

materials on record.

12. On perusal of the materials, this Court finds that the first

respondent/claimant suffered 55% disability as per the evidence of PW-2,

Doctor. The said assessment was accepted by the Tribunal. There is no dispute

with regard to the permanent disability suffered by first respondent/claimant.

The question that arises for consideration is that whether the application of

multiplier, in the present case, is justifiable?

13. The first respondent/claimant had suffered 55% permanent disability

in the accident. The first respondent/claimant had not adduced any evidence to

establish that due to permanent disability he is unable to carry on his avocation

as he was doing before and hence, he suffers loss of income. Therefore, the first

respondent/claimant has not established before the Tribunal that his future

prospects is very much affected due to the injuries suffered in the accident. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.3014 of 2013

14. As the first respondent/claimant has not established that due to

permanent disability suffered by him, he is unable to carry on his avocation,

this Court is of the view that application of multiplier is unwarranted. At the

same time, this Court is also of the view that the first respondent/claimant is

entitled to receive a just and reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained

by him in the accident. Taking into consideration the decision of the

Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and

Another [2011 (1) SCC 343], this Court is of the view that the present case

does not warrant application of multiplier as the first respondent/claimant has

not established that he suffers loss of future prospects and finds it difficult to

carry on his avocation.

15. However, considering the percentage of disability suffered by the

first respondent/claimant i.e. 55%, this Court is of the view that it would be just

and reasonable to grant Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. Accordingly, the

compensation payable under the head permanent disability would be

Rs.1,65,000/-. This Court is also of the view that the amount awarded under the

other heads is also very meagre and the same needs to be enhanced.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.3014 of 2013

16. Accordingly, the modified compensation payable would be:

                             Sl.      Compensation awarded under the          Amount
                             No.                  head                        (in Rs.)
                               1.   55% of Disability                          1,65,000.00
                               2.   Medical Expenses                             18,263.00
                               3.   Pain and suffering                           25,000.00
                               4.   Attender Charges                             15,000.00
                               5.   Amenities                                    20,000.00
                               6.   Loss of Income for 3 months of               18,000.00
                                    Rs.6,000/-
                               7.   Transportation charges                       10,000.00
                               8.   Future Medical Expenses                      20,000.00
                               9.   Extra Nourishment                            10,000.00
                                                                     Total     3,01,263.00

17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, the

total compensation of Rs.3,22,793/- awarded by the tribunal is reduced to

Rs.3,01,263/- round off to Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5%

per annum.

18. The appellant Insurance Company shall deposit the modified

compensation amount, as awarded by this Court along with interest at the rate

of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, less the

amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.3014 of 2013

receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the first

respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the modified amount by filing