Madras High Court
M/S.Reliance General Insurance ... vs R.Vidhya on 16 June, 2021
CMA No.711 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 16.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and
THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 711 of 2021
---
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Reliance House, No.6, 6th Floor,
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 006. .. Appellant
Versus
1.R.Vidhya
2.Amada Soft India Private Limited,
No.54/55, North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act
1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P. No.
351 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small
Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar
For R1 : Mr. R.Thirugnanam
For R2 : Set Exparte
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
CMA No.711 of 2021
JUDGMENT
S. KANNAMMAL, J
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal in and by the award dated 27.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P. No. 351 of 2013
on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai,
the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the
quantum of compensation.
2. On 17.10.2010 at about 16.30 hrs when the claimant was traveling in the
car bearing registration number TN 09 AV 2920 at G W T Road, Opposite to
Nokia Company, C.R.P Chatram, Sriperumbudur, proceeding towards Chennai, the
same was driven in a rash and negligent manner and at the time front left tyre of
the car suddenly burst out due to which, the car hit against the stationary lorry
bearing registration No.TN 21 AC 4380 and the claimant sustained grievous
injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. Hence the
claimant/first respondent herein filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P. No.351 of
2013 against the appellant and second respondent claiming a sum of
Rs.16,00,000/- as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.711 of 2021
3. The claim petition filed by the claimant resisted by the
appellant/Insurance Company disputing the manner of accident, the nature of
injury, the alleged loss of earning capacity and also disputed the quantum of
compensation sought by the claimant under various heads.
4. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the averments in the claim petition,
on the side of the claimant P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P23 were
marked. The disability certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board to the
claimant/ petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.351 of 2013 was marked as Ex.C.1. On the
side of respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
5. The Tribunal after analyzing the entire evidence available on record came
to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the car and passed an award for sum of Rs.31,24,700/- and
directed the Insurance Company/Insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the same
with interest at 7.5% per annum.
6. We have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials
placed on record. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, awarded compensation under various heads as under.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.711 of 2021
Sl.No Head under which the Amount awarded by
amount is awarded the Tribunal(in Rs.)
1 Pain and Sufferings Rs.50,000/-
2 Extra Nourishment Rs.50,000/-
3 Loss of earning Rs.24,19,200/-
4 Medical Expenses Rs. 4,19,515/-
5 Loss of Amenities Rs. 50,000/-
6 Attender Charges Rs.50,000/-
7 Damages to cloths Rs. 1,000/-
8 Future Medical Expenses Rs.70,000/-
9 Transportation charges Rs.14,905
Total Rs.31,24,620/-
rounded off to
Rs.31,24,700/-
7. Though very many contentions were raised in the appeal filed by the
appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company mainly
objected to the percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal in awarding the
compensation. The learned counsel would submit that though the Medical Board
has given the disability certificate for 40%, the Tribunal has taken 70% disability.
Since the objection is only with regard to the percentage of disability taken by the
Tribunal, we are not inclined to going to the other aspects. In this context, we are
fortified by the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ajay
Kumar Vs.Raj Kumar reported in 2011 ACJ.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.711 of 2021
8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand,
supported the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal as fair and reasonable
and prayed for dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
9. On careful perusal of Ex.C.1, the Regional Medical Board issued
disability certificate for 40%. But the Tribunal without assigning any valid reason
observed that 40% disability of the petitioner will affect his avocation upto 70%
and thereby fixed the disability of the petitioner at 70%. When the Regional
Medical Board itself has examined the petitioner and assessed the percentage of
the disability of the petitioner at 40%, 70% disability fixed by the Tribunal for
awarding compensation towards loss of earning capacity is unsustainable which
needs interference.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that the
Tribunal has awarded 50% towards future prospects instead of 40%. Following the
decisions of Supreme Court, we are of the view that the award of 50% towards
future prospects is unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is modified as 40%
towards future prospects instead of 50% as taken by the Tribunal. Except the
above said modifications, the award passed by the Tribunal under various heads
are confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.711 of 2021
11. Thus taking a monthly income as Rs.12,000/- and future prospects as
40% would comes to Rs.6,800/-. Annual Income comes to
(Rs.6,800x12=2,01,600/-), applying multiplier '16' and taking 40% for disability,
the loss of earning comes to Rs.12,90,240/-(2,01,600x16x40%). Accordingly, this
Civil Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed. No costs. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
Sl.No Head under which Amount Amount Award
the amount is awarded by the awarded by confirmed or
awarded Tribunal(in this enhanced or
Rs.) Court (in Rs.) granted
1 Pain and Sufferings Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- confirmed
2 Extra Nourishment Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- confirmed
3 Loss of earning Rs.24,19,200/- Rs.12,90,240/- reduced
4 Medical Expenses Rs. 4,19,515/- Rs.4,19,615/- confirmed
5 Loss of Amenities Rs. 50,000/- Rs.50,000/- confirmed
6 Attender Charges Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- confirmed
7 Damages to cloths Rs. 1,000/- Rs.1,000/- confirmed
8 Future Medical Rs.70,000/- Rs.70,000/- confirmed
Expenses
9 Transportation Rs.14,905 Rs.14,905/- confirmed
charges
Total Rs.31,24,620/- Rs.19,95,760/- Reduced by
rounded off to rounded off to Rs.11,24,700/-
Rs.31,24,700/- Rs.20,00,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.711 of 2021
12. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award
amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the
amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.351 of 2013. On
such deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award
amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn if any, by
filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellant/ Insurance
Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount, if any lying in the deposit to
the credit of M.C.O.P. No.351 of 2013, if the entire amount has already been
deposited.
[R.P.S.J.,] [S.K.J.,]
16.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/Non speaking order
mpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.711 of 2021
R. SUBBIAH, J
and
S. KANNAMMAL, J
mpa
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer
Vernacular Records Section
High Court, Madras.
CMA.No.711 of 2021
16.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
