Madras High Court
The National Insurance Co vs Viswanathan on 13 July, 2021
CMA No.2155 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CMA No.2155 of 2015
and
MP No.1 of 2015
The National Insurance Co.,
rep. By its Branch Manager,
having office at Pudupalayam
at Veerapandi Village in
Gobi Town,
Gobi Taluk. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Viswanathan
2. V. Sathish
3. N. Arunkumar ... Respondents
(2 and 3rd respondents were set
exparte by the Tribunal. Hence
notice in this appeal against
them may be dispensed with.)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree 25.03.2013 made in MCOP
No.204 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III
Additional District Judge, Gobichettypalayam.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Padmanabhan
For Respondents : Not ready in notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
CMA No.2155 of 2015
JUDGMENT
(Heard Video Conference)
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging
the award dated 25.03.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (III Additional District Judge), Gobichettypalayam in MCOP
No.204 of 2011.
2. The appellant / Insurance Company is mainly aggrieved by the
adoption of the multiplier method for assessing the loss of earning capacity
of the respondent / claimant by the Tribunal under the impugned award.
It is their contention that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the
multiplier method, since the respondent / claimant has not been able to
establish before the Tribunal that in view of the injuries sustained by him,
he has been unable to do his regular avocation permanently.
3. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the appellant /
Insurance Company to pay a compensation of Rs.4,99,250/- as detailed
hereunder :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2155 of 2015
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Loss of earning 3,78,000
Rs.7,500 - 1/3 = 5,000/- x 12 x
14 x 45%
Medical bills as per Ex.P8 1,10,810
Medical bills as per Ex.P9 10,000
Total 4,99,250
4. Heard Mr.K.Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the appellant /
Insurance Company. Since this Court is going to confirm the award of the
Tribunal, the notice to the first respondent is dispensed with. R2 and R3
were set ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence notice to R2 and R3 are
dispensed with.
5. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award before
the Tribunal.
6. The Doctor (PW2) has assessed the disability of the respondent /
claimant at 45% for the injuries sustained by the respondent / claimant
which included loss of two teeth on the upper jaw and loss of ten teeth in
the lower jaw and the fracture of facial bone. The Tribunal has accepted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2155 of 2015
the disability certificate issued by the Doctor, who has also been examined
as a witness (PW2) and has adopted the multiplier method for assessing
the loss of earning power of the respondent / claimant before the Tribunal.
The respondent / claimant has also deposed that due to the injuries
sustained by him, he has unable to do his regular work and is also been
unable to perform any other work also. No contra evidence has been
produced by the appellant / Insurance Company before the Tribunal to
prove that the respondent / claimant has become normal after his
treatment. The respondent / claimant has also been hospitalised for a
period of 8 days from 07.11.2011 to 15.11.2011 as seen from the
discharge summary which has been marked as Ex.P7 before the Tribunal.
No dispute has also been raised by the appellant / Insurance Company
with regard to the injuries sustained by the respondent / claimant. This
Court is also of the considered view that the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal to the respondent / claimant cannot be considered
to be excessive, as alleged by the appellant / Insurance Company. Hence,
the adoption of multiplier method by the Tribunal under the impugned
award is a correct assessment and therefore the contention of the appellant
/ Insurance Company that multiplier method ought not to have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2155 of 2015
adopted is rejected by this Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity
in the findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal
and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
7. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire award amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at
7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, less the
amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of MCOP No.204 of 2011
on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District
Judge, Gobichettypalayam, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the
Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the bank
account of the first respondent / claimant, through RTGS, within a period
of two weeks thereafter.
13.07.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2155 of 2015
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
To
1. The III Additional District Judge,
Gobichettypalayam.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section
High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.
CMA No.2155 of 2015
13.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2155 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
