Madras High Court
The Manager vs G.Karthikeyan on 18 June, 2021
CMA No. 3097 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 18.06.2021
Coram :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3097 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
The Manager
National Insurance Company Limited
III Floor, Units Buildings Annexe
No.72, Mission Road, Bangalore
Karnataka – 560 027. .. Appellant
Versus
1. G.Karthikeyan
2. The Proprietor
K.K.Indane Enterprises
D.No.135/131, Old Madras Road
Sri Sai Complex,
Ulsoor, Bangalore. .. Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of The Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order and Decreetal order dated 18.02.2013
made in MCOP No.198 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Krishnagiri.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No. 3097 of 2014
For Appellant : M/s.D.Bhaskaran
For Respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran
JUDGMENT
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal in and by the award dated 18.02.2013 made in MCOP No.198 of
2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate
Judge), Krishnagiri, the second respondent in the claim petition/National
Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the liability and
quantum of compensation.
2. On 01.07.2010 at about 9.30a.m, the claimant/first respondent
herein was riding in a Herohonda motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-24-
B-6583 and while crossing Basaweswara Circle near Race Course Road, a
Tempo bearing registration No.KA-03-C-8378 came in the same direction in a
rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner and thereby, the
claimant sustained grievous injuries and hence, the claimant claimed a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No. 3097 of 2014
3. The claim petition filed by the claimant was resisted by the second
respondent/Insurance Company disputing the age, occupation, income and
status of the petitioner and involvement of the vehicle, the manner of the
accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant and also disputed the
quantum of compensation sought by the claimant.
4. In order to prove the claim, on the side of the claimant, the
claimant was examined as PW.1 and Dr.M.Devendiran was examined as PW.2.
Exs.P1 to P13 were marked on the claimant's side. On the side of Insurance
Company, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.
5. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence available on
record, came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the tempo belonging to the first respondent
and insured with the second respondent and passed an award for a sum of
Rs.9,39,520/-, under the following heads:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No. 3097 of 2014
Sl.No Head under which the amount is Amount awarded by the
awarded Tribunal(in Rs.)
1 Loss of income 7,25,760/-
2 Medical Bills (Ex.A10) 6,400/-
3 Medical Bills (Ex.A11) 1,06,360/-
4 Pain and Suffering 50,000/-
5 Future treatment throughout 21,000/-
life
6 Extra nourishment 15,000/-
7 Attender Charges 15,000/-
Total 9,39,520/-
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would
mainly submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head
'loss of income' is on the higher side, considering the nature of injuries and the
period of treatment and also the fact that the disability is 'physical disability'
not 'functional disability'. The Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier
method, but ought to have adopted percentage method, when there is no
evidence to conclude that the injured cannot do any avocation and earn income
in future, since the injured was admitted in the hospital on 01.07.2010 and
after surgery on 02.07.2010, he was discharged from hospital on 03.07.2010
and joined duty within two months, which is seen from Ex.A8 dated
06.09.2010. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the interference of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No. 3097 of 2014
this Court is required to reduce the compensation.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent
herein/claimant would submit that the Tribunal, after considering the nature of
injuries, surgery, disability and treatment taken by the claimant and also
considering the age of the claimant, awarded a correct compensation and the
same requires no interference by this Court.
8. It is seen from Ex.A2-Discharge summary that the claimant
underwent surgery for his fracture. The Doctor opined that the claimant
suffered 48% physical disability. Ex.A8 is the welcoming letter from Mind
Tree Sofware Company. The claimant himself made admission that he has
joined in the said company. Obviously the claimant's avocation has not been
affected due to the injury sustained by him in the accident. Hence, this Court is
of the view that the Tribunal erred in adopting multiplier method for awarding
compensation under the head 'loss of income' and it is just and proper to apply
percentage method for awarding compensation under the head 'loss of income'.
Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is of
the opinion that Rs.3,000/- per disability would be just and fair and the award
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No. 3097 of 2014
under the head 'loss of income' has to be modified as Rs.1,44,000/- (48% x
3000).
9. Since the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads
'medical bills (Ex.A10) and (Ex.A11)' is based on medical bills submitted by
the claimant and the same was not disputed by the appellant, the same is
hereby confirmed.
10. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads
remain unaltered, as the same are just and reasonable.
11. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for the loss of income
during the period of treatment, which may be atleast four months. Hence a
reasonable sum of Rs.80,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during the
treatment period.
12. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities
and transportation. This Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of amenities and Rs.7,000/- towards transportation is to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No. 3097 of 2014
awarded which is just and reasonable.
13. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified
as follows:-
Sl.No Head under which the amount is Amount awarded by Amount awarded by
awarded the Tribunal(in Rs.) this Court (in Rs.)
1 Loss of income 7,25,760/- 1,44,000/-
2 Medical Bills (Ex.A10) 6,400/- 6,400/-
3 Medical Bills (Ex.A11) 1,06,360/- 1,06,360/-
4 Pain and Suffering 50,000/- 50,000/-
5 Future treatment throughout 21,000/- 21,000/-
life
6 Extra nourishment 15,000/- 15,000/-
7 Attender Charges 15,000/- 15,000/-
8 Loss of income during NIL 80,000/-
treatment period
9 loss of amenities NIL 25,000/-
10 Transportation NIL 7,000/-
Total 9,39,520/- 4,69,760/-
(Rounded to
Rs.4,70,000/-)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No. 3097 of 2014
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed,
reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.9,39,520/- to Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Seventy Thousand
only), which carries interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition
till the date of deposit, except for the default period, if any. No costs in this
CMA. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15. It is seen that vide order dated 18.11.2014 made in M.P.No.1 of
2014, this Court directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount
with accrued interest and cost to the credit of MCOP. The appellant/Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the award amount, as assessed by this Court,
together with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of MCOP till the date of
realisation with costs of MCOP. Except for the default period if any, less the
amount already deposited, to the credit of MCOP No.198 of 2011 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge),
Krishnagiri, 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 claimant/first
respondent herein, through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No. 3097 of 2014
The appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw the amount
deposited, if any, more than the amount awarded by this Court with interest
and cost of the MCOP.
mra 18.06.2021
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer
Vernacular Records Section
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No. 3097 of 2014
S.KANNAMMAL, J
mra
CMA. No. 3097 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
18.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
