Madras High Court
The Manager vs G.Parasuram on 15 July, 2021
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2016
and CMP.No.18427 of 2016
The Manager,
Royal Sundaram Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Sundaram Towers, No.45 & 46, Whites Road,
Chennai – 600 014. ...Appellant
vs.
1.G.Parasuram
2.A.Gurunadha Reddy … Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the Judgment and Decree made in M A C T O P.No.436 of 2012 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Tiruttani dated
25.2.2016
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Suganthan for R1
R2 – served - NA
JUDGMENT
(This case was heard through Video Conferencing)
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the
impugned Award dated 25.02.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court, Tiruttani in MCOP.No.436 of 2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2016
2.Heard Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent.
3.The Appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the impugned Award on
the following grounds:
(a) They are questioning the liability to pay compensation on the ground that
the first respondent/claimant fell on his own from his vehicle and there was no
impact of the insured vehicle with the first respondent/claimant's vehicle.
(b) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
4.The learned counsel for the Appellant drew the attention of this Court to
Ex.R1-wound certificate and Ex.R2-discharge summary and would submit that as
seen from the aforementioned documents, the first respondent/claimant has slipped
and fell down from his two wheeler and sustained injuries in his right leg and
therefore, there was no impact between the first respondent/claimant's two wheeler
and the insured vehicle which was a car bearing Registration No.AP-03-AT-4100.
The Tribunal has taken into consideration the defence of the Appellant Insurance
Company and the Tribunal rejected the said contention on the ground that a thorough
investigation was conducted by the Police and thereafter a chargesheet was also filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2016
which confirms that the driver of the insured car was responsible for the cause of the
accident. Hence, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company liable to pay the
compensation as seen from the evidence available on record.
5.Excepting for the reliance of Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 by the Appellant Insurance
Company, no contra evidence has been produced by them before the Tribunal to
prove that there was no impact between the insured car and the two wheeler.
6.Any adjudication of claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is
based on preponderance of probabilities. In the case on hand, preponderance of
probabilities in favour of the first respondent/claimant's contention that it was only
the fault of the driver of the insured vehicle which resulted in him sustaining injuries
out of the accident. Therefore, this Court confirms the findings of the Tribunal with
regard to the Appellant's liability. Further, as seen from the evidence available on
record, the Appellant Insurance Company has also not examined the driver of the
insured vehicle and all these factors will infer that it was only the fault of the driver
of the insured car which resulted in the first respondent/claimant's sustained injuries.
Therefore, the first contention of the Appellant Insurance Company is rejected by
this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2016
7.Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
concerned, this Court is of the considered view that excepting for the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the heads pain and suffering at Rs.50,000/- which is
on the higher side, the quantum of compensation under various other heads viz.,
disability, transportation, extra nourishment and medical expenses cannot be
considered to be excessive as alleged by the Appellant Insurance Company for the
following reasons:
(i)The first respondent/claimant has sustained the following injuries as a result
of the accident:
(a)Tibia and Fibula both bones fractures on his right leg.
(b)Plates and screws have also been fixed on the first
respondent/claimant for the injuries sustained by him.
(c) The Doctor in his disability certificate has disclosed that bones are
malunited on the first respondent/claimant and he will have difficulty in
bending his leg beyond 80º degrees.
8.The Doctor who examined the first respondent/claimant has assessed his
disability at 60%. The Tribunal has awarded a disability compensation of
Rs.1,80,000/- calculated at Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability for the 60%
disability suffered by the first respondent/claimant. The accident happened in the
year 2012. This Court is of the considered view that the assessment of the disability
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2016
made by the Doctor at 60% and the assessment of disability compensation at
Rs.1,80,000/- is a correct assessment.
9.The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards
transportation, Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.1,41,700/- towards
medical expenses which is confirmed by this Court. However, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering at Rs.50,000/- is on the higher
side and it has to be reduced by this Court. Accordingly, this Court reduces the same
by Rs.30,000/- and fixes the compensation towards pain and suffering at Rs.20,000/-
instead of Rs.50,000/- fixed by the Tribunal.
10.For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
reduced from Rs.4,11,700/- to Rs.3,81,700/- by this Court as detailed hereunder:
Heads Amount Modified/
awarded by the Reduced by this
Tribunal Court
Disability Rs.1,80,000 Rs.1,80,000
Transportation Rs.20,000 Rs.20,000
Extra nourishment Rs.20,000 Rs.20,000
Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000 Rs.20,000
Medical Bills Rs.1,41,700 Rs.1,41,700
Total Rs.4,11,700/- Rs.3,81,700/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2016
11.The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.3,81,700/-from
Rs.4,11,700/- along with interest and costs assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal
shall transfer the amount assessed by this Court lying to the credit of MCOP.No.436
of 2012 to the bank account of the first respondent/claimant through RTGS, within a
period of one week thereafter. The Appellant Insurance Company is permitted to
withdraw the excess amount if any, deposited by them before the Tribunal.
12.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.07.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
pam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2016
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Subordinate Judge) at Tiruttani.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
pam
C.M.A.No.2568 of 2016
15.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
