Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Arumugam on 23 November, 2021
CMA(MD)No.466 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
CMA(MD)No.466 of 2021 &
CMP(MD)No.4057 of 2021
The Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
PLA Kanga Complex,
No.15A, 1st Cross, Thillai Nagar,
Trichy-18.
... Appellant
vs.
1.Arumugam
2.Pandiyan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated
20.11.2020 in MCOP.No.51 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai in so far as
liability to pay compensation and the quantum of compensation awarded.
For Appellant :Mr.V.Sakthivel
For Respondents :Mr.K.L.Maniyarasu for R1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
CMA(MD)No.466 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The appellant filed this appeal against the Judgment and Decree
dated 20.11.2020 in MCOP.No.51 of 2016 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai.
2. The case of the first respondent/claimant is that on 26.12.2015,
at about 04.15 pm, when he was riding his TVS XL Super II motorcycle
bearing Registration No.TN 55 AE 0400, an indica car bearing
Registration No.TN 44 CD 8696 belonging to the first respondent and
insured with the second respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the two wheeler, as a result of which, the first
respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he filed
MCOP.No.51 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai claiming compensation for the
injuries sustained by him.
3. The Tribunal after analysing the entire evidence on record,
awarded a sum of Rs.12,53,466/- together with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum, as compensation to the first respondent/claimant.
Questioning their liability and also the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.466 of 2021
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the first
respondent/claimant was not wearing helmet at the time of the accident
and he also had no valid driving licence on the date of the accident,
hence, there is a violation of policy. He would further submit that the
Tribunal erred in awarding a very high compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-
under the head pain and sufferings. He would also submit that a private
Doctor has issued the Disability Certificate fixing the disability at 32%
and the Tribunal ought not have taken the same as it is, which is on the
higher side.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant would
submit that the grounds raised by the appellant in this appeal were not
raised by them before the Tribunal. The learned counsel would further
submit that the first respondent/claimant has sustained injuries that are
grievous in nature and considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, which need
not be disturbed. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. The first ground raised by the appellant is that the first
respondent/claimant was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.466 of 2021
rightly stated by the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant,
this ground was not raised by the Insurance Company before the
Tribunal. The second ground raised by the appellant is that the first
respondent/claimant was not in possession of valid driving licence on the
date of accident. However, the Insurance Company has not filed any
document to prove their contention. Another ground raised by the
appellant is that the Tribunal was wrong in accepting the Disability
Certificate issued by a private Doctor, fixing the disability at 32%, which
is on the higher side. It is seen from the records that the first
respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries and fractures on his hip,
chest, left shoulder and pelvic bone. In view of the injuries and fractures
sustained by the first respondent/claimant, this Court is of the opinion
that 32% disability fixed by the Doctor is reasonable. The accident is of
the year 2015 and hence, the Tribunal is right in fixing Rs.3,000/- per
percentage of disability and awarding Rs.96,000/- towards disability.
Admittedly, it is clear that the injuries are grievous in nature and the
Doctor has fixed the disability at 32%. However, this Court is of the
opinion that Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and
sufferings is on the higher side and therefore, it is hereby reduced by Rs.
50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferings. All
other heads awarded by the Tribunal are hereby confirmed. It is made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.466 of 2021
clear that only the compensation awarded under the head pain and
sufferings is reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant/Insurance Company has already deposited the entire
compensation amount to the credit of MCOP.No.51/2016 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pudukottai.
8. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.
12,53,466/- to Rs.12,03,466/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
(iii) Since the amount has already been deposited by the
appellant/Insurance Company, the first respondent/claimant is at liberty
to withdraw the same along with proportionate interest and costs after
following due process of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.466 of 2021
S.ANANTHI, J.
mbi
(iv) The appellant/Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the
amount that is in excess of the amount awarded by this Court together
with proportionate interests and costs after following due process of law.
23.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mbi
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai
CMA(MD)No.466 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
