Madras High Court
National Insurance Company ... vs G.Ravi on 1 October, 2021
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
& C.M.P.No.13493 of 2016
National Insurance Company Limited,
No.751, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. ... Appellant
Versus
1. G.Ravi
S/o Gopalakrishnan.
2.S.Balakrishnan,
S/o Sivashankar ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and to set
aside the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.
No.372 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II
Court of Small Causes), Chennai, and reduce the award amount.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For Respondents : Ms.A.Subadra
for Ms.M.Mala for R1
R2-Notice served
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/National Insurance
Company Limited, Chennai, challenging the award dated 26.02.2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small
Causes), Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.372 of 2014.
2. The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the impugned
award only on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is excessive.
3.The Tribunal in the impugned Award directed the
appellant/Insurance Company to pay the first respondent/claimant the
compensation of Rs.13,25,200/- as detailed hereunder.
Heads Amount awarded by
the Tribunal
Transportation, Rs. 50,000/-
nourishing food and
miscellaneous expenditure
Medical Expenses Rs. 3,06,000/-
Attender charges Rs. 14,000/-
Damages for pain, Rs. 50,000/-
suffering and trauma
Disability Rs. 1,95,000/-
Loss of earning during Rs. 30,000/-
treatment period
Loss of earning capacity Rs. 6,55,200/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.13,25,200/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
4.Heard Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned Standing counsel for the
appellant and Ms.A.Subadra, learned counsel for Ms.M.Mala, learned
counsel for the first respondent/claimant.
5. This Court has perused the materials and evidence available on
record before the Tribunal.
6.The first respondent/claimant has sustained the following
injuries on 11.12.2013 caused by a vehicle insured with the appellant :-
"Sustained grievous head injuries, mandible
fracture, Pan Facial Fracture, Head and Facial
injury, chest injury, aspiration pneumonia and
Left Zygomatic arch Fracture and Segmental
fracture of mandible of left side and grievous
injury all over the body."
7.The nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant
has not been disputed by the appellant/Insurance Company before the
Tribunal. However, the appellant/Insurance Company has disputed only
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
8. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant has filed 16
documents, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P16 and two witnesses were
examined on his side viz, the first respondent/claimant himself as PW1
and the Doctor, who examined him as PW2. However, on the side of
the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document
was filed before the Tribunal.
9.The Doctor (PW2), who examined the first respondent/claimant
has assessed the disability of the first respondent/claimant at 65%. The
Doctor has also in his Disability Certificate stated that due to the injuries
sustained by the first respondent/claimant, he has suffered hearing loss.
The first respondent/claimant was hospitalised for a period of 14 days in
the Government Hospital, Pondicherry, and MIOT Hospital, Chennai.
The period of hospitalisation has also not been disputed by the appellant/
Insurance Company. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,95,000/-
towards disability calculating Rs.3,000/- per percentage for 65%
disability assessed by the Doctor. This Court is of the considered view
that the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant as
referred to supra would certainly entitle him to get compensation by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
adoption of multiplier method. The assessment of disability by the
Doctor(P.W.2) at 65% is not on whole body disability. This Court is of
the considered view that the whole body disability of the first
respondent/claimant has to be assessed but an accurate assessment cannot
be made by this Court. However, after giving due consideration to the
nature of the injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant as well as
the period of hospitalisation and after giving due consideration the
disability certificate issued by the Doctor(P.W.2), this Court deems it fit
to assess the whole body disability of the first respondent/claimant at
25%.
10.The first respondent/claimant was a Milk Vendor, aged about
45 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has assessed the
notional monthly income of the first respondent/claimant at Rs.7,500/-.
The accident happened in the year 2013. Since no documentary evidence
was produced by the first respondent/claimant before the Tribunal, this
Court is of the considered view that the assessment of the notional
monthly income of the first respondent/claimant at Rs.7,500/- is the
correct assessment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
11.The first respondent/claimant is also entitled for loss of future
prospects in view of the grievous injuries sustained by him as detailed
supra. After giving due consideration to the avocation and his age, this
Court awards loss of future prospects at 30% and after adding the loss of
future prospects, the monthly income is assessed by the Court at
Rs.9,750/- [(Rs.7,500/-x30/100=Rs.2,250/-) (Rs.7500/-+Rs.2250/-=
Rs.9,750/-)].
12.Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
various other heads viz., transportation, medical expenses and pain and
suffering are concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the
assessment made by the Tribunal under those heads is just compensation
and does not call for any interference. However, the Tribunal has
awarded lesser compensation towards attender charges and loss of
amenities. This Court, therefore, enhanced the compensation towards
attender charges at Rs.24,000/- and loss of amenities from Rs.25,000/- to
Rs.40,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
13.Since this Court adopted the multiplier method for assessing
the loss of earning power for the first respondent/claimant, he is not
entitled for the disability compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.1,95,000/-, as it will amount to duplication. Accordingly, the amount
awarded under the head disability at Rs.1,95,000/- by the Tribunal is set
aside. Similarly, the first respondent/claimant is also not entitled for loss
of earning during treatment awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.30,000/- and
the same is set aside.
14. The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards
future medical expenses. When the nature of injuries sustained by the
first respondent/claimant was given due consideration, the Tribunal
ought to have awarded compensation towards future medical expenses.
After giving due consideration to the nature of injuries sustained by the
first respondent/claimant, this Court awards Rs.25,000/- towards future
medical expenses to the first respondent/claimant.
15.For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal to the first respondent/claimant is reduced from Rs.13,25,200/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
to Rs.9,00,500/- as detailed hereunder.
Heads Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
Loss of earning Rs. Rs.6,55,200/- Rs. 4,09,500/-
Transportation, nourishing Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
food and miscellaneous
expenditure
Medical Expenses Rs. 3,06,000/- Rs. 3,06,000/-
Attender charges Rs. 14,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
Damages for pain, suffering Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
and trauma
Disability Rs. 1,95,000/- ----
Loss of earning during Rs. 30,000/- ----
treatment period
Future medical expenses ----- Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
Total Rs.13,25,200/- Rs. 9,00,500/-
16. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance
Company stands partly allowed by reducing the compensation from
Rs.13,25,200/- to Rs.9,00,500/- as indicated above. No costs.
Connected C.M.P.No.13493 of 2016 stands closed.
17. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire award amount as assessed by this Court together with interest at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, less
the amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.372 of
2014 on the file of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional
District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur, 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 first respondent/claimant, through RTGS, within a
period of two weeks thereafter. The requisite Court fee, if any has to be
paid by the appellant/Insurance Company before receiving the copy of
this Judgment.
01.10.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
raa
To
1. The Judge, II court of Small Causes,
Motor accident Claims Tribunal,
II court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
raa
C.M.A.No.1837 of 2016
01.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
