Madras High Court
M/S. United India Insurance Co Ltd vs S.Baskar on 2 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.2931 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA. No.2931 of 2011
M/s. United India Insurance Co Ltd,
No.1090, Poonamallee High Road,
Periyamet, Chennai -3. ... Appellant
..vs..
1.S.Baskar
2.B.Rathinavel ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2010 made in
M.C.O.P.No. 9 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.Michael Visuvasam
For Respondents : Ms.Ramya V.Rao -R1
For Mr.A.N.Viswanathan Rao
Notice unserved -R2
----
JUDGMENT
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, dated 10.11.2010,
passed by the tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.1,96,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2931 of 2011
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, the Appellant/
Insurance Company is before this Court to set aside the judgment
and decree by the tribunal.
2. It is the case of the claimant/ 1st Respondent herein that
on 06.06.2006 at about 16.00 hrs the claimant was travelling as
pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN04-W-6329, when
nearing Chengalpattu to Vallipuram Salai, the rider of the
motorcycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit
against the another Motorcycle bearing Reg.No. TN21-U-5137. As a
result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries in all over the body.
The Claimant/1st Respondent filed a claim petition before the
tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the disability
and the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. After
analyzing both oral and documentary evidences, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.1,96,000/- as total compensation along with interest at
the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till realization.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
company has submitted that the tribunal has arbitrarily fixed the
income of the 1st respondent at Rs.6000/- in the absence of any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2931 of 2011
documentary evidence. The tribunal has failed to appreciate the
excessive assessment of disability at 30% by PW2 one
Dr.Saravanabhavanantham after a period of four years, namely 10|
% each for anticonvulsant therapy, head ache and vertigo, when
there is no record to show the above defects. The learned counsel
for the appellant further submitted that the tribunal arbitrarily
reduced the disability at 25% and 20% assessed by PW2 & PW3.
The compensation granted by the tribunal for disability at
Rs.90,000/- is very excessive and the sum awarded under other
heads are also excessive and liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the 1st respondent/claimant submitted that the tribunal has
awarded the said compensation based on the evidence and
documents, therefore, the award passed by the tribunal does not
warrants any interference by this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent/ claimant and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2931 of 2011
6. Before the tribunal, on the side of the claimants three
witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked ten
documents Exhibits P1 to P10. No witness were examined and no
documents were marked on the side of the respondents.
7. On a perusal of records, it is seen that the claimant/1st
respondent herein had initially lodged a complaint against the rider
of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No. TN21-U-5137 which came in the
opposite direction. But during chief examination, he deposed that
the rider of the motorcycle in which he travelled as a pillion rider
was responsible for the accident. There was no contra evidence let
in for the above evidence. Hence the tribunal fixed the negligence
on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, in which the claimant
travelled and directed the insurer of the said vehicle who is the
appellant herein to pay the compensation. The said decision of the
tribunal is based on the evidence of PW1, therefore this Court also
confirms the negligence and liability fixed by the tribunal.
8. As far as quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal
is concerned, it is seen from the award that two doctors viz., PW2
& PW3 had assessed the disability sustained by the claimant/1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2931 of 2011
respondent and issued two disability certificates mentioning
disability at 30% & 20% and the same were marked as Ex. P8 and
Ex.P10 respectively. The tribunal has reduced the disability
assessed by PW2 to 25% from 30% and the disability assessed by
PW3 to 20% from 25%, total disability taken by the tribunal is 45%.
Hence , by fixing Rs.2000/- per percentage, the tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards disability. This Court by
taking note of the disability, which is partial in nature and
considering the medical records, is of the opinion that fixing 25%
towards the disability would be reasonable. The learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent/claimant also agreed to fix 25%
disability. Accordingly, by fixing Rs.2,000/- per percentage, this
court modifies the compensation awarded bythe tribunal from
Rs.90,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. In view of the injuries sustained by the
claimant, this Court feels that the sum awarded under Loss of
Income for six months is excessive and the same is reduced to
three months. Accordingly, the said compensation is modified as
'Loss of income for three months' at Rs.18,000/- (Rs.6000/- per
month). The compensation awarded for 'Medical Expenses' at
Rs.27,000/- is proved through Ex.P6, hence the said amount is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2931 of 2011
confirmed. The tribunal has not awarded any amount for 'Loss of
Amenities', therefore, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted under the said
head. In view of the injuries, disability and the treatment taken by
the 1st respondent/claimant, the compensation awarded by the
tribunal under the head 'Pain and suffering' is reduced from
Rs.25,000 to Rs.15,000/- and the sum awarded under other heads
viz, Transport expenses, Extra Nourishment, Attender Charges are
confirmed. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the tribunal is
modified by this Court under various heads are as follows;
Heads Compensation Compensation
granted by the modified by
Tribunal this Court
Rs.
Loss of Income 36,000/- 18,000
(6000 x 3)
Disability 90,000/- 50,000/-
(2000 x 25)
Transport expenses 5000 5,000
Extra Nourishment 10,000 10,000
Medical Expenses 27,000 27,000
Attender charges 3,000 3,000
Pain and suffering 25,000 15,000
Loss of amenities ... 5,000
Total 1,96,000 1,33,000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2931 of 2011
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed, by reducing the total amount of compensation from
Rs.1,96,000/- to Rs.1,33,000/- along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum. The 1st respondent/claimant is entitled for
compensation only as per the modification made by this Court.
10. It is represented by the learned counsel for the
appellant/insurance company that the entire award amount has
been deposited before the tribunal. In view of the same, the
appellant/insurance company is permitted to withdraw the
remaining compensation amount by filing appropriate application
before the tribunal. No costs.
02.03.2021
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2931 of 2011
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
ak
To
1. The VI Court of Small Causes,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal)
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
CMA.No.2931 of 2011
02.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
