Madras High Court
Divisional Office – 5 vs K.Basha on 10 November, 2021
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
Divisional Office – 5
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Spencer Towers, 4th floor
770-A, Anna salai
P.B.No.2447, Chennai-2. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.K.Basha
2.A.M.Loganathan
3.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.
Bharathipuram
Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
25.07.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.894 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For R1 : Mr.M.Selvam
R2 : Exparte
R3 : Given up
JUDGMENT
(The matter is heard through Video-conferencing/Hybrid mode)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and
decree dated 25.07.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.894 of 2013 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri.
2.The appellant/Insurance Company is 2nd respondent in
M.C.O.P.No.894 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri. The 1st respondent filed the
said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for
the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on
26.09.2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
3.According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, i.e., on
26.09.2008, at about 2.50 p.m., while he was travelling as a passenger in
the bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-2003 belonging to the 3rd
respondent, from Hosur to Krishnagiri, near Kamandoddy Bridge, which
was driven by its driver slowly on the left side of the road, the driver of
the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-21-P-4698 belonging to the 2nd
respondent insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. Due to
the said impact, the 1st respondent sustained lacerated injuries, fractures
of right 2nd meta tarsal bone and right mandible mobility, pain on left
lower joint and lower jaw teeth. The 1st respondent took treatment as in-
patient in Government Hospital, Hosur, from 26.09.2008 to 29.09.2008
for four days and thereafter, took treatment as out-patient continuously in
Government Medical College Hospital, Salem and private hospital at
Krishnagiri. At the time of accident, the 1st respondent was working as a
lorry driver and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
injuries, the 1st respondent could not do the day-to-day work and could
not continue his profession as a driver and therefore, filed claim petition
claiming compensation against the appellant/Insurance Company, 2nd
respondent/owner of the lorry and 3rd respondent/Transport Corporation.
4.The 2nd respondent, owner of the lorry, remained exparte before
the Tribunal.
5.The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter statement and
stated that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the 3rd respondent/Transport
Corporation and the driver of the lorry belonging to the 2 nd respondent is
not responsible for the accident. The appellant/Insurance Company has
also denied the nature of injuries mentioned in the claim petition and
stated that the 1st respondent has filed the claim petition exaggerating the
injuries and disability suffered by him for claiming compensation. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
sum of Rs.3,00,000/- claimed by the 1st respondent as compensation is
excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6.The 3rd respondent/Transport Corporation filed counter statement
stating that the 3rd respondent is added only as a formal party. The
accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the lorry belonging to the 2nd respondent. The driver of the bus
belonging to the 3rd respondent is not responsible for the accident.
Therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the
1st respondent and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition in respect of
the 3rd respondent.
7.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as
P.W.1 and examined Dr.D.V.Gandhi, as P.W.2 and marked 9 documents
as Exs.P1 to P9. The appellant/Insurance Company did not let in any oral
and documentary evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
8.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence let in by the 1st respondent, held that the accident has occurred
only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry
belonging to the 2nd respondent, fixed 25% disability considering the
evidence of P.W.2/Doctor and the documents filed by the 1st respondent,
adopted multiplier method, awarded a sum of Rs.2,42,500/- as
compensation to the 1st respondent, directed the 2nd respondent as well as
the appellant/Insurance Company, being insurer of the lorry, to pay the
said compensation to the 1st respondent and dismissed the claim petition
against the 3rd respondent/Transport Corporation.
9.Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the
present appeal.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent are simple in nature. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
percentage of disability assessed by P.W.2/Doctor is excessive. The
Tribunal erred in granting compensation towards disability by adopting
multiplier method for the fractures of right 2nd meta tarsal bone and right
mandible mobility. The 1st respondent has not suffered any functional
disability and lost his earning capacity. The total compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the
Tribunal.
11.The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent made his
submissions in support of the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
12.The 2nd respondent, owner of the lorry, was set exparte before
the Tribunal and hence, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.
The appellant has given up the claim as against the 3rd
respondent/Transport Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
13.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as
the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the
entire materials on record.
14.It is the case of the 1st respondent that in the accident, he
sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability. After the
accident, the 1st respondent took treatment as in-patient in Government
Hospital, Hosur, from 26.09.2008 to 29.09.2008 for four days and
thereafter, he took treatment as out-patient in Government Medical
College Hospital, Salem and private hospital at Krishnagiri. He spent
more than Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and further, he requires
about Rs.50,000/- towards future medical treatment. Due to the injuries,
the 1st respondent suffered head ache, giddiness and unable to grind,
munch food materials as he was doing before and his face was
disfigured. Due to the disability, he could not sit, stand, walk and unable
to do his day-to-day work as he was doing earlier. At the time of
accident, the 1st respondent was working as a lorry driver and was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the injuries, he could not
continue his work as a driver. To prove his case, the 1 st respondent filed
ExP2/wound certificate, Ex.P5/Driving license, Ex.P6/discharge
summary, Ex.P7/Salem Hospital treatment book, Ex.P8/X-ray and
Ex.P9/disability certificate and examined the Doctor as P.W.2.
P.W.2/Doctor examined the 1st respondent and certified that 1st
respondent suffered 40% disability. The appellant/Insurance Company
has not let in any contra evidence to disprove the evidence of
P.W.2/Doctor and the documents filed by the 1st respondent. The Tribunal
considering the nature of injuries and the documents filed by the 1st
respondent, fixed the disability of the 1st respondent at 25%. The
Tribunal considering the nature of avocation of the 1st respondent as he
was a driver at the time of accident, adopted multiplier method and
granted compensation towards loss of earning capacity. The 1st
respondent claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month at
the time of accident. But he has not filed any material evidence to prove
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
the same. In the absence of any evidence with regard to monthly income
of the 1st respondent, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as
notional income. The accident is of the year 2008 and the monthly
income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. The 1st respondent was aged 37
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 vs. Delhi Transport Corporation), rightly applied
multiplier ‘15’ and granted compensation towards loss of earning
capacity. Considering the above materials, this Court is of the view that
the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is valid. Further, the
Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards medical expenses,
transportation and loss of amenities. Hence, the total compensation
granted by the Tribunal under different heads are not excessive
warranting interference by this Court.
15.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and
the sum of Rs.2,42,500/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
1st respondent along with interest and costs is confirmed. The
appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount
awarded by the Tribunal 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. It is represented by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company that they have
already deposited entire award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.894
of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub
Court, Krishnagiri. Therefore, the 1st respondent is permitted to
withdraw the amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. This appeal is dismissed
against the 3rd respondent/Transport Corporation. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
10.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes/No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
Kj
To
1.The Special Subordinate Judge
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court
Madras.
C.M.A.No.692 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
10.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
