Madras High Court
S. Sudhakar … vs A. Girija ... 1St on 7 September, 2021
CMA Nos.834 & 2078 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CMA Nos.834 & 2078 of 2021
and
MP No.11223 of 2021
S. Sudhakar … Appellant in CMA No.834 of 2021
and
1st respondent in CMA No.2078 of 2021
versus
1. A. Girija ... 1st respondent in CMA No.834 of 2021
and
nd
2 respondent in CMA No.2078 of 2021
2. Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.
Reliance House, 6th Floor,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006. … 2nd respondent in CMA No.834 of 2021
and
Appellant in CMA No.2078 of 2021
Prayer in CMA No.834 of 2021: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and
decree dated 12.10.2020 in MCOP No.1688 of 2018 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.I, Full
Additional Incharge of II Small Causes, Chennai).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.834 & 2078 of 2021
Prayer in CMA No.2078 of 2021: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and
decree dated 12.10.2020 made in MCOP No.1688 of 2018 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.1, Chennai.
For Appellant in CMA No.834 of 2021
and 1st respondent in CMA No.2078 of 2021: Mr.R. Nalliyappan
For Appellant in CMA No. 2078 of 2021
and 2nd respondent in CMA No.834 of 2021 : M/s. S. Arunkumar
For R1 in CMA No.834 of 2021
and 2nd respondent in CMA No.2078 of 2021: Served – No appearance
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Heard video conference)
CMA No. 834 of 2021 has been filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation under the impugned award dated
12.10.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub
Court No.1, Full Additional Incharge of II Court of Small Causes),
Chennai and CMA No.2078 of 2021 has been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the very same award questioning the quantum of
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Since both these appeals arise out of a very same accident, both
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.834 & 2078 of 2021
these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.
3. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the Insurance
Company to pay the claimant a compensation of Rs.26,00,100/- as
detailed here under :
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Pecuniary loss 18,90,000
Pain and suffering 40,000
Transportation 5,000
Medical expenses 5,91,563
Extra nourishment 20,000
Attender charges 3,500
Loss of future prospects 50,000
Total 26,00,063
Rounded off 26,00,100
4. Heard Mr.R. Nalliyappan, learned counsel for the claimant and
Mr.S. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
5. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award
before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.834 & 2078 of 2021
6. The claimant S. Sudhakar, the Appellant in CMA No. 834 of
2021 has sustained the following injuries on 18.02.2018 as a result of an
accident caused by a vehicle insured with the Appellant in CMA No.
2078 of 2021.
Bilatereal superior pubic rami fracture, Right inferior
pubic ramus fracture, Bilateral sacral ala fracture, Fracture
in posterior aspect of right 4th - 7th ribs, Fracture shaft of
right femur and Right proximal tibia fracture (Split fracture of
lateral condyle), Crush degloving mangled foot and ankle of
right lower limb and Morbid obesity and which resulted in the
claimant in right leg Below knee guillotine amputation and the
injuries appears to be grievous in nature.
The nature of injuries sustained by the claimant has not been disputed by
the Insurance Company before the Tribunal.
7. However, it is the contention of the Insurance Company that the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is
excessive. According to them, the disability assessed by the Tribunal at
70% is excessive and the notional monthly income fixed by the Tribunal
is also excessive. According to them, the claims Tribunal ought not to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.834 & 2078 of 2021
have fixed a sum of Rs.18,90,000/- as loss of earning capacity to the
claimant without any evidence.
8. However, it is the contention of the claimant that the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and is not a just
compensation. According to the claimant, he has sustained 100%
functional disability as a result of an accident due to the injuries
sustained by him and hence the assessment of 70% disability by the
Tribunal is not a correct assessment. It is also the contention of the
claimant that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards
loss of future prospects. It is also the contention of the claimant that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is not a just
compensation and it has to be enhanced.
9. The injuries sustained by the claimant as referred to supra have
also not been disputed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal.
The claimant was also hospitalized for a long period of time as seen from
the evidence available on record as well as from the impugned award.
The period of hospitalization of the claimant which is reflected in the
impugned award has also not been disputed by the Insurance Company as
seen from the evidence available on record. The injured claimant claims
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.834 & 2078 of 2021
to be running a Rice Mill. However, before the Tribunal excepting for
filing a copy of the licence for running the Rice Mill, which has been
marked Exs. P6 and P7, no documentary evidence has been produced to
prove his monthly income arising out of the said Rice Mill. Even
though, in the claim petition, he has pleaded that he is earning
Rs.40,000/- p.m., no documentary evidence has been produced by the
claimant before the Tribunal to prove that he was earning Rs.40,000/-
p.m. The accident happened in the year 2018. The Tribunal only after
taking into consideration the year of the accident and the age of the
claimant has assessed the monthly income on notional basis and has
fixed the same at Rs.15,000/- which in the considered view of this
Court cannot be considered to be unjust as alleged by the claimant.
10. This Court is of the considered view that the said assessment
made by the Tribunal is a fair assessment and there is no scope for
interference and accordingly the contention of the Insurance Company
that the fixation of the notional monthly income at Rs.15,000/- is on a
higher side is also rejected by this Court. No documentary evidence has
been produced by the claimant to prove that he has suffered a loss of
future prospects on account of the injuries sustained by him as a result of
an accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.834 & 2078 of 2021
11. Admittedly, the claimant was a Businessman having his own
Rice Mill. If there was a loss of future prospects, the claimant ought
have produced Income Tax Returns, Bank Statements or other relevant
documents to prove that he had suffered loss of future prospects as a
result of the injuries. When no documents having been produced, this
Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the
claim of the claimant for loss of future prospects.
12. Even though, the disability of the claimant assessed by the
Tribunal at 70% may be on the higher side, as no sufficient evidence has
been placed by the claimant excepting for the production of the disability
certificate, this Court after giving due consideration to the overall
compensation of Rs.26,00,100/- awarded to the claimant under various
heads is of the considered view that the overall compensation cannot be
considered to be excessive as alleged by the Insurance Company. In fact,
the excess compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal under the
head pecuniary loss can be set off under various other heads viz., Pain
and Suffering, Transportation, Attender charges and loss of amenities,
where this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has awarded
lesser compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.834 & 2078 of 2021
13. Since the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.26,00,100/- is a just compensation, there is no scope for interference
with regard to the impugned Award. The contentions raised by the
Insurance Company as well as the claimant in the respective Appeals
does not deserve any merit. In the result, both these Civil Miscellaneous
Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
14. The Appellant /Insurance Company in CMA No.2078 of 2021
is directed to deposit the entire award amount awarded by the Tribunal
together with interest at 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 MCOP No.1688 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.I, Full Additional Incharge of II Small
Causes, Chennai, 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
1st respondent / claimant through RTGS, within a period of two weeks
thereafter .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.834 & 2078 of 2021
07.09.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
To
1. The Judge /
Full Additional In-charge of
II Court of Small Causes,
Special Sub Court No.1,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section
High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.834 & 2078 of 2021
CMA Nos.834 & 2078 of 2021
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
