Madras High Court
M/S. Reliance General Insurance ... vs Poongavanam on 28 June, 2021
C.M.A.No.1918 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A.No.1918 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14184 of 2020
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Reliance House, 6th Floor,
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Poongavanam
2.M.Munusamy .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
17.07.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.5002 of 2015 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar
For R1 : Mr.Richard Sureshkumar
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1918 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award
dated 17.07.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.5002 of 2015 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.5002 of 2015 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I,
Small Causes Court, Chennai. The 1st respondent filed the said claim petition,
claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained
by her in the accident that took place on 20.06.2015.
3.According to 1st respondent, on 20.06.2015 at about 10.45 hours,
while she was travelling as pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing
Registration No.TN 03 F 8554 at T.H. Road, opposite to Our Lady School,
Thiruvottiyur, the driver of the Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 24 Y
1319, who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1918 of 2020
the motorcycle in which the 1st respondent was travelling as pillion rider and
caused the accident. In the accident, the 1st respondent sustained fracture of
left leg, right hand crush injury and multiple injuries all over the body. The 1st
respondent has taken first aid treatment in Sugam Hospital and then taken
inpatient treatment at Stanley Hosptial from 20.06.2015 till filing of the claim
petition. Therefore, she filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her against the
2nd respondent and appellant-Insurance Company, being the owner and
insurer of the Mini Lorry respectively.
4.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the Mini Lorry belonging to 2nd respondent and directed the
appellant-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.9,80,150/- as compensation
to the 1st respondent.
5.To set aside the said award dated 17.07.2019 made in
M.C.O.P.No.5002 of 2015, the appellant has come out with the present
appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1918 of 2020
6.Though the appellant has raised a ground with regard to negligence,
at the time of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
restricted his arguments only with regard to quantum of compensation and
contended that the Regional Medical Board, Government Stanley Hospital,
Chennai, has not assessed the percentage of disability for the whole body of
the 1st respondent. The Tribunal failed to distinguish between partial
permanent disability and functional disability. The 1st respondent has not filed
any document to prove her avocation and income. In the absence of any
material evidence with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal fixed a
sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income of the 1st respondent and
awarded a sum of Rs.8,42,400/- as pecuniary loss by adopting multiplier
method and the same is not correct. The Tribunal in addition to awarding
compensation towards pecuniary loss, has awarded a further sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of future prospects and the same is erroneous. The
amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are highly excessive and
prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent
contended that in the accident, the 1st respondent sustained fracture of left leg,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1918 of 2020
right hand crush injury and multiple injuries all over the body. The Regional
Medical Board, Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai examined the 1st
respondent and certified that she suffered 90% disability and issued
Ex.C1/disability certificate to that effect. The Tribunal considering Ex.C1 and
awarded a sum of Rs.8,42,400/- as compensation towards pecuniary loss and
the same is proper. At the time of accident, the 1st respondent was aged 45
years, working as Coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.800/- per day. But, the
Tribunal has fixed a meagre sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income
and awarded compensation. The 1st respondent has taken treatment as
inpatient in the Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai from 20.06.2015 to
29.08.2015 for 71 days and the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards
pain and sufferings, transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges
are meagre. The Tribunal considering the entire materials on record, has
awarded a sum of Rs.9,80,150/- as compensation to the 1st respondent, which
is not excessive and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance
Company as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent and
perused the entire materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1918 of 2020
9.From the materials on record, it is seen that in the accident the 1st
respondent sustained fracture of left leg, right hand crush injury and multiple
injuries all over the body. The Regional Medical Board, Government Stanley
Hospital, Chennai examined the 1st respondent and certified that she suffered
90% disability and issued Ex.C1/disability certificate to that effect. The
Tribunal considering Ex.C1/disability certificate, fixed the functional
disability of the 1st respondent at 90% and awarded compensation for 90%
loss of earning capacity and the same is not correct. The Regional Medical
Board, Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai assessed the disability of the
1st respondent at 90% and the same is converted to whole body and the loss of
earning capacity of the 1st respondent is fixed at 30% for whole body. At the
time of accident, the 1st respondent was working as Coolie and was earning a
sum of Rs.800/- per day. The 1st respondent has not filed any document to
prove her avocation and income. In the absence of any material evidence with
regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal considering the year of accident
and nature of work done by the 1st respondent, fixed a sum of Rs.6,000/- per
month as notional income of the 1st respondent. The accident occurred in the
year 2015 and the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1918 of 2020
Considering the year of accident, age and nature of work done by the 1st
respondent, a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month is fixed as notional income of the
1st respondent. As per Ex.P11/copy of Aadhaar card, 1st respondent was aged
50 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal following the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court,
[Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another], rightly
applied multiplier '13'. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
towards loss of earning capacity of the 1st respondent is modified to
Rs.3,04,200/- (Rs.6,500/- X 12 X 13 X 30/100).
10.From the award passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that the 1 st
respondent has taken treatment as inpatient in the Government Stanley
Hospital, Chennai from 20.06.2015 to 29.08.2015 for 71 days. Considering
the nature of injuries and period of treatment taken by the 1st respondent, the
amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, transportation
and attendant charges are meagre and the same are enhanced to Rs.75,000/-,
Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively. The Tribunal has not awarded any
amount towards loss of amenities. Due to injuries and disability suffered by
the 1st respondent, she would have suffered inconvenience and would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1918 of 2020
facing discomfort in her life. Therefore, the 1st respondent is entitled to a sum
of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities. The amounts awarded by the
Tribunal towards medical expenses and loss of future prospects are just and
reasonable and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. Thus, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
S. Description Amount awarded Amount awarded Award confirmed
No by Tribunal by this Court or enhanced or
(Rs) (Rs) granted
1. Loss of earning 8,42,400/- 3,04,200/- Reduced
capacity
2. Pain and sufferings 40,000/- 75,000/- Enhanced
3. Extra nourishment 20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed
4. Transportation 5,000/- 10,000/- Enhanced
5. Medical expenses 4,987.50/- 4,987.50/- Confirmed
6. Attendant charges 17,750/- 25,000/- Enhanced
7. Loss of future 50,000/- 50,000/- Confirmed
prospects
8. Loss of amenities - 30,000/- Granted
Total Rs.9,80,137.50/- Rs.5,19,187.50/- Reduced by
Rounded off to Rounded off to Rs.4,60,950/-
Rs.9,80,150/- Rs.5,19,200/-
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.9,80,150/- is hereby reduced
to Rs.5,19,200/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant-Insurance Company is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1918 of 2020
directed to deposit the modified 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.5002 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Small Causes Court, Chennai. On
such deposit, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount
now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount
if any, already withdrawn by making necessary applications before the
Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the
excess amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.5002 of 2015, if the award
amount has already been deposited by them. Consequently the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
28.06.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1918 of 2020
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
krk
To
1.The Special Subordinate Judge No.I,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.1918 of 2020
28.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
