Madras High Court
The Bajaj Alliance General ... vs Perumal on 22 July, 2021
CMA No.1553 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CMA No.1553 of 2015
and
MP No.1 of 2015
The Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
GE Plaza,
Airport Road,
Yerwada
Pune - 411 066. ... Appellant
versus
1. Perumal
2. J.Rathnasekar ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree in MCOP No.953 of 2007,
dated 23.09.2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal,
Chief Magistrate Court, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Ms.P.Shobana
for Mrs.R.Sreevidhya
For Respondents : Mr.K.Prasanna
for M/s.Mukund R. Pandian for R1
R2 - Served - No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
CMA No.1553 of 2015
JUDGMENT
(Heard Video Conference)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant / Insurance Company
challenging the award dated 23.09.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri in MCOP No.953 of 2007.
2. The appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the
impugned award on the following grounds :
a) the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method for
assessing the compensation and
b) the Tribunal has erroneously failed to grant pay and recovery
rights to the appellant.
3. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the appellant
/Insurance Company to pay the first respondent / claimant a
compensation of Rs.4,32,718/- as detailed hereunder :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1553 of 2015
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Compensation for loss of 3,46,032/-
income
Compensation for his pain 15,000/-
and sufferings
Medical bills 66,686/-
Transport and extra 5,000/-
nourishment
Total compensation 4,32,718/-
4. The first respondent / claimant sustained the following injuries
on 22.02.2007 as a result of an accident caused by a vehicle insured with
the appellant :
Type III B Open Winquist hansen Grade 4
communicated fracture distal 1/4th of left tibia and fibula,
2) Lacerated wound 6 x 3cm over meduial aspect of
lower 1/3rd of leg exposing bone spike of proximal fragment
and minimall contaminated.
5. The Doctor, PW2, who examined the first respondent has also
deposed before the Tribunal that due to the injuries sustained by the first
respondent / claimant, he is unable to sit, run, stand, squat, to climb steps
and to carry weight. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 40%.
However, the Tribunal for the purpose of assessing the compensation
towards loss of income by adopting the multiplier method has taken the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1553 of 2015
disability of the first respondent /claimant to be at 25%. The first
respondent / claimant was 57 years old at the time of the accident. After
considering his age and after giving due consideration to the nature of
injuries sustained by him, this Court is of the considered view that the
assessment of the disability by the Tribunal at 25% is a correct
assessment.
6. The Doctor, PW2 has admittedly examined the first respondent /
claimant only in the year 2010 i.e. after 3 years from the date of the
accident. As seen from the evidence available on record, no iota of
evidence has been let in by the appellant / Insurance Company before the
Tribunal to prove that the disability sustained by the first respondent /
claimant was not as a result of an accident caused by their insured
vehicle. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal
has rightly adopted the multiplier method in view of the disablement of
the first respondent / claimant, as stated supra as a result of an accident
caused by the insured vehicle.
7. Therefore, the first contention of the appellant / Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1553 of 2015
Company is rejected by this Court.
8. With regard to the second contention viz., non grant of pay and
recovery rights is concerned, there is merit in the contention of the
appellant/Insurance Company for the following reason :
Admittedly, as seen from the evidence available on record, the
rider of the insured vehicle was not possessing driving licence. A notice
was also sent by the appellant / Insurance Company to the insured calling
upon him to produce a copy of the Driving Licence of the rider of the
motor cycle, which has been duly acknowledged by the owner (insured).
The notice, dated 05.09.2021 as well as the acknowledgment card has
been marked as Exs.R4 and R5 before the Tribunal.
9. The appellant / Insurance Company has also examined the RTO
official as RW1. The RTO official (RW1) has also deposed before the
Tribunal that the rider of the motor cycle (insured vehicle) was not
possessing a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. However,
the Tribunal despite the documentary evidence as well as the deposition
of RW1 has erroneously not granted pay and recovery rights to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1553 of 2015
appellant. The second respondent is the owner of the vehicle (insured)
has also remained ex-parte both before the Tribunal as well as before this
Court. In view of the clinching evidence available on record to prove
that the rider of the motor cycle (insured vehicle) does not possess the
driving licence, at the time of the accident, this Court grants pay and
recovery rights to the appellant.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
shall stands partly allowed by granting pay and recovery rights to the
appellant / Insurance Company and permitting them to seek recovery of
the compensation amount paid to the claimant from the owner of the
insured vehicle. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
11. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire award amount as awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at
7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization
and costs, less the amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of
MCOP No.953 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Chief Magistrate Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of four
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1553 of 2015
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.
22.07.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
To
1. The Chief Magistrate,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section
High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1553 of 2015
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
CMA No.1553 of 2015
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
