Madras High Court
Branch Manager vs )C.Indira ... R1 In Cma.8/202 on 25 February, 2021
CMA(MD)Nos.8 and 9 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CMA(MD)Nos.8 and 9 of 2020
and
CMP(MD)Nos.134 and 135 of 2020
Branch Manager,
Chola M/s.General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
D.No.76A/7, Byepass Road,
M.S.R.Complex, Srivilliputtur Town,
Near ICICI ATM,
Virudhunagar District. ... Appellant in both CMAs
vs.
1)C.Indira ... R1 in CMA.8/2020
2)K.Latha ... R1 in CMA.9/2020
3)Sasikumar
4)V.Soundarapandian ... R2 & R3 in both CMAs
Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988,
against the judgment and decree made in MCOP.Nos.72 and 70 of 2018
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court), Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur, dated 30.01.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.K.R.Shivashankari
For R1 : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For R3 : Mr.M.Jothi Basu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
CMA(MD)Nos.8 and 9 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT
Challenging the quantum of compensation, the present appeals
have been filed by the insurance company.
2.The learned counsel for the appellant would state that the
claimants in both the cases sustained collar bone fracture and the medical
board has assessed the partial permanent disability at 56% and 54%
respectively which is not the functional disability with respect to the
injuries sustained and therefore, application of multiplier method for
arriving at the loss of income by the Tribunal is wholly unjustified and
the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.3,000/- per percentage of
disability. Except the above, the compensation under other heads are not
disputed.
3.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant in both
appeals would state that the Tribunal considering the entire evidence has
awarded a just and reasonable compensation which does not require any
interference by this Court.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
respondents 1 and 3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/6
CMA(MD)Nos.8 and 9 of 2020
5.Perusal of record shows that the respondent/claimant in both the
cases sustained fracture of left collar bone and they took treatment in
Thevi Hospital, Tirunelveli, between 09.07.2017 and 12.07.2017, during
which, surgeries were performed and a plate has been inserted to fuse the
fractured collar bones. The claimants would state that due to pain in the
left collar bone, they are still taking treatment as outpatient and the
medical board of Government General Hospital, Virudhunagar, has
issued Exs.P20 and P21-disability certificates stating that the claimants
have suffered permanent disablement to an extent of 56% and 54%
respectively, but the Tribunal relying upon a decision in Metropolitan
Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. Sundara Vadivel reported in
2017 (2) TN MAC 29, reduced the percentage of disability to 32% and
30% respectively holding it as functional disability sustained by the
claimants.
6.As per the certificate issued by the medical board, the claimants'
disability has been assessed as 56% and 54% respectively and there is no
reason assigned by the learned Judge to take the disability as 32% and
30% respectively. Though the claimants in both the cases had not
proved the avocation, the learned Judge taking into consideration that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/6
CMA(MD)Nos.8 and 9 of 2020
claimants are house-wives also known as homemaker whose work is
running or managing her family's home, caring for her children, buying,
cooking and storing food for the family, buying goods that the family
needs for everyday life, housekeeping, cleaning and maintaining the
home and making, buying or mending clothes for the family and who is
not employed outside the home, but inside the house facilitating the work
of everybody at home and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly
awarded compensation. There is no reason given by the learned Judge
for reducing the percentage of disability from 56% and 54% to 32% and
30% respectively while computing the compensation and therefore, in
my considered opinion, the compensation granted is low and hence, I am
not inclined to interfere with the award.
7.The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with
proportionate interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal in both the
claim petitions, less the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of
the claim petitions within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted
to withdraw the same without filing formal permission petition before the
Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/6
CMA(MD)Nos.8 and 9 of 2020
8.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed accordingly. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
bala/msa 25.02.2021
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5/6
CMA(MD)Nos.8 and 9 of 2020
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala/msa
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
CMA(MD)Nos.8 and 9 of 2020
DATED : 25.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
