Madras High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance General vs Sarankumar on 25 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.4612 of 2020
Royal Sundaram Alliance General
Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.45 & 46, Whites Road,
Chennai – 600 014. ..Appellant
Vs.
1.Sarankumar
S/o.Paramanantham
2.Jakir Hussain
S/o.Late. Marimuthu ..Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
16.09.2019 in M.C.O.P.No.1715 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes-V, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
For Appellant :: Mr.G.Vasudevan
For Respondents :: Mr.K.Suryanarayanan, for R1
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award dated
16.09.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1715 of 2012 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes-V, Chennai.
2.The appellant/Insurance Company is the 2nd respondent in
M.C.O.P.No.1715 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Court of Small Causes-V, Chennai. The 1st respondent filed the
above claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation
for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on
01.03.2012.
3.According to the 1st respondent, on 01.03.2012 at about 3.30 p.m.,
he was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-63-U-0874 near
Gragalakshmi Apartments, Perambur High Road, from East to West
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
direction. At that time, a TATA Ace Car bearing Registration No.TN-05-
AK-4901 belonging to the 2nd respondent and insured with the
appellant/Insurance Company, was coming in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the motorcycle driven by the 1st respondent and caused
the accident. The 1st respondent suffered multiple grievous injuries and filed
the above claim petition claiming compensation.
4.The owner of the car/2nd respondent remained ex-parte before the
Tribunal.
5.The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter statement denying
the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident
occurred solely due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the 1st
respondent and the alleged accident is also denied by the 2nd respondent.
The first respondent has to prove the age, income, nature of injuries,
medical expenses incurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident by
producing documentary evidence. In any event, the total amount claimed as
compensation is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1,
Mr.Ilango, Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Administration
Wing was examined as P.W.2 and Mr.Palanikumar, Proprietor Asian Chill
System was examined as P.W.3 and marked thirty two documents as
Exs.P1 to P32. The appellant/Insurance Company did not let in any oral or
documentary evidence before the Tribunal.
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the TATA Ace Car belonging to the 2 nd respondent
and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of
Rs.41,41,800/- as compensation to the 1st respondent.
8.Against the said award dated 16.09.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1715
of 2012 , the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present
appeal challenging the liability fastened on them as well as quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
9.The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would
vehmentally contend that the claimant has also equally contributed for the
accident and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted some amount
towards contributory negligence. However, the Tribunal fastened the entire
liability on the appellant/Insurance Company which is contrary to the
evidence aduced before it. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant
would contend that the claimant is also a tort-feaser who had adequently
contributed for the accident. In such circumstances, he prayed for setting
aside the award of the Tribunal in sofaras it fixes the entire liability on the
appellant/Insurnace Company.
10.As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the claimant claimed to have been earning a
sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal had only taken a sum of
Rs.12,000/- as compensation. However, the Tribunal had taken the
percentage of disability at 70% and resorted to award compensation by
applying the multiplier method. This, according to the learned counsel for
the appellant had resulted in awarding excessive compensation in favor of
the claimant. The learned counsel for the appellant also specifically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
submitted that the amount awarded under the head Transportation and Extra
Nourishment, Attendar Charges and Loss of Amenities are excessive. The
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.300/- per day towards Attendar Charges for
which there is no record produced by the claimant for having spent such
amount. In any event, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour
of the claimant is excessive and it warrants proportionate reduction by this
Court.
11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted
that the claimant was 24 years old at the time of accident. He had taken
treatment for the multiple injuries suffered by him for the period of 279
days. Because of the injuries suffered by him, his marital prospects have
adversely affected. The first information report in this case was registered
against the driver of the car and he was also charge sheeted P.W.2/the
Traffic Inspector has specifically deposed that it was the driver of the car
who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the
accident. Further the claimant also examined P.W.3 his employer to
substantiate his earning capacity. Having regard to the oral and
documentary evidence produced by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
a just and fair compensation which is befitting the nature of injuries and the
period of hospitalization of the claimant. While so, the learned counsel for
the claimant/1st respondent prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
12.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned
counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/claimant and perused the materials
available on record.
13.In connection with the accident occurred on 01.03.2012, at about
3.30 p.m., the First Information Report under Ex.P1 was registered against
the driver of the car. The manner in which the accident had occurred was
also spoken by P.W.2/The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing.
The Tribunal taking note of the above, has rightly held that the accident was
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. Even though
the appellant has claimed that the claimant also contributed to the accident
there was no evidence produced to substantiate the same. In the absence of
any such evidence, the Tribunal is wholly justified in fastenining the entire
liability on the Appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation to
the claimant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
14.As regards the quantum of compensation, it is seen that the
claimant was 24 years old at the time of accident and he suffered multiple
fracture injury. Initially, he had taken treatment in Government General
Hospital, Chennai and thereafter, he had taken treatment in private hospitals
as in-patient for about 279 days. The claimant also produced the medical
bills, discharge summary, scan report etc., to substantiate the same. The
Tribunal, taking note of the amount incurred by the claimant towards
hospitalization, awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,940/- as medical expenses. As the
award of this amount is supported by valid medical bills, we need not to
interfere with the same.
15.Further, the claimant claimed that he was earning a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month as salary by working as AC Mechanic in Asian Chill
System. P.W.3 was his employer who has confirmed the employment of the
claimant. The claimant also produced Ex.P7/Salary Certificate and also
Bank Pass Book under Ex.P23. Taking note of this documentary evidence,
the Tribunal has taken his monthly income at Rs.12,000/- per month and
applied the multiplier 18 and awarded compensation towards loss of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
income. In her opinion, the Tribunal is wholly justified in resorting to
awarding compensation by adopting the multiplier method in as much as the
Doctor has certified the disability of the claimant at 75%.
16.The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards
Transportation and Extra Nourishment, Rs.83,700/- towards Attendar
Charges, Rs.2,00,000/- towards Loss of Amenities. As far as Attendar
Charges, the Tribunal on its own has awarded a sum of Rs.300/- per day
towards Attendar Charges. Of course, there is no document produced by the
claimant to substantiate that he had incurred a sum of Rs.300/- per day.
Therefore, we are of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal
towards Attendar Charges cannot be sustained. Similarly, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards Transportation and Extra
Nourishment and has also another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards Loss of
Amenities. The amount awarded under these heads in our opinion are
certainly excessive and they warrant interference by this Court. Sofaras, all
other heads are concerned, we are of the view, the amount awarded by the
Tribunal are just and fair over which we are not inclined to interfere. In the
result, we re-determine the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
as follows.
S. Description Amount Amount Award
No awarded by awarded by this confirmed or
Tribunal Court enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Pain & 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- confirmed
Sufferings
2. Transportation & 2,00,000/- 40,000/- reduced
Extra
Nourishment
3. Loss of earnings 25,40,160/- 25,40,160/- confirmed
4. Attender charges 83,700/- 40,000/- reduced
5. Loss of amenities 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- reduced
6. Medical bills 5,76,940/- 5,76,940/- confirmed
7. Future Medical 40,000/- 40,000/- confirmed
Expenses
8. Loss of marriage 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- reduced
prospects
9. Damages to 1,000/- 1,000/- confirmed
clothes
Total Rs.41,41,800/- Rs.37,38,100/- reduced by
Rs.4,03,700/-
17.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.41,41,800/- is hereby
reduced to Rs.37,38,100/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award
amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the
amount already deposited if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st
respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount now
determined by this Court along with interest and costs, after adjusting the
amount if any, already withdrawn. The appellant/Insurance Company is
permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the deposit to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.1715 of 2012, if the entire award amount has already been
deposited by them. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
(R.P.S.J.) (S.S.K.J.)
gbi 25.01.2021
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
V-Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
R.SUBBIAH, J.
AND
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
gbi
C.M.A.No.750 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.4612 of 2020
25.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
