Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Narasappa on 29 September, 2021
C.M.A.No.2838 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.2838 of 2014 &
M.P.No.1 of 2014 &
C.M.P.No.6261 of 2017
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office,
No.444, Kamarajar Salai,
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. ... Appellant
Vs
1.Narasappa
2.D.Sivathapandian ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.04.2013 made
in MCOP.No.104 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(PSJ) Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Ms.I.Malar
For Respondent 1 : Mr.Prasanna,
for M/s.Mukund R.Pandiyan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2838 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance company challenging the
impugned award dated 19.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) in MCOP.No.104 of 2009.
2. Heard Ms.I.Malar, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr.Prasanna, learned counsel for the first respondent.
3. The first respondent/claimant preferred a claim seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained by him as a result of an accident
caused by a vehicle owned by the second respondent and insured with the
Appellant.
4. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the Appellant
Insurance company to pay the first respondent/claimant a compensation of
Rs.17,07,346/- together with interest and costs as detailed hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2838 of 2014
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Loss of future earnings 8,26,200/-
(4500 x 12 x 17 x 90%)
Pain and suffering 40,000/-
Transportation 27,516/-
Medical Expenses 71,630/-
Nutrition 20,000/-
Attender charges 6,72,000/-
Future medical 50,000/-
treatment
Total 17,07,346/-
5. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant has filed twelve
documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and two witnesses were
examined on his side namely, the first respondent/claimant himself as PW1
and the Doctor who medically examined him as PW2. On the side of the
Appellant Insurance Company neither any document was filed nor any
witness examined, before the Tribunal.
6. As per Ex.A4, CT Scan report, the first respondent/claimant has
sustained the following injuries:
(1) Fracture lateral wall of the right maxillary antrum with oblique
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2838 of 2014
fracture to the base of the right petrous temporal bone and the right squamous
temporal bone.
(2) Post-traumatic collections – right maxilary / sphenoidal sinuses and
the mastrod air cells bilaterally, right side more than left.
(3) Normal intracranium.
(4) Right temporo – parieto – frontal extracranial soft tissue contusions
petition mentioned grievous injuries.
7. As per Ex.A5, MRI Report, the first respondent/claimant has
sustained the following injuries:
(1) Acute anterior wedge compression of the T7 vertebral body with
retropulsion of portions of its canalicular cortex into the canal associated with
central compressions of the T6 vertebral body, Fractures to the lamnae of the
T7, T6/T5 vertebrae, to the T6/T7 articular processes, Associated with
listhesis T6 over T7 vertebrae causing the cal/cord compressions, with cord
contusions / left sided posterior shaft rib fractures.
(2) Acute Post – traumatic changes to the T9 vertebral body.
8. As per Ex.A7 CT Tarsahal spine scan report, the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2838 of 2014
respondent/claimant has sustained the following injuries:
(1) Fracture with wedge compression of D7 vertebral body with small
retro pulsed fragment causing mild compression of the thecal sac on the left
side.
(2) Pedicle screws at D5 and D9 in situ. S
The nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant has not been
disputed by the Appellant Insurance company before the Tribunal as seen
from the evidence available on record.
9. The Doctor has assessed the disability of the first
respondent/claimant at 100%. However, the Tribunal has assessed the same
at 90%. The Tribunal after giving due consideration to the injuries as well as
to the period of the first respondent/claimant's hospitalisation, has adopted the
multiplier method for the purpose of assessing the compensation towards loss
of future earnings. Under the impugned award, the Tribunal has also extracted
the statements made by the Doctor who has examined the first
respondent/claimant. The Doctor has categorically stated that the first
respondent/claimant due to the injuries sustained as a result of the accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2838 of 2014
requires constant medical attention. The Tribunal has rightly adopted the
correct multiplier of 17 as the first respondent/claimant was aged 32 years at
the time of the accident.
10. The notional monthly income of the first respondent/claimant was
fixed at Rs.4,500/- which cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by
the Appellant Insurance Company as the accident happened in the year 2007.
The loss of future earnings assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.8,26,200/- which
cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the Appellant Insurance
Company.
11. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards
pain and suffering, Rs.27,516 towards transportation charges based on the
bills produced by the first respondent/claimant which has been marked as
Ex.A10 before the Tribunal, Rs.71,630/- towards medical bills based on the
medical bills produced by the first respondent/claimant which has been
marked as Ex.A7 before the Tribunal, Rs.20,000/- towards nutrition and
Rs.6,72,000/- towards attender charges calculated at Rs.2,000/- per month for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2838 of 2014
the period of 28 years ie., upto the first respondent/claimant reaching the age
of 60 years which cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the
Appellant Insurance Company, since admittedly the first respondent/claimant
has to be bedridden and cannot move about as a normal human being.
12. The Tribunal has also awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/-
towards expenses for Future medical treatment to the first
respondent/claimant which cannot be considered to be excessive as the first
respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries which has resulted in him
becoming immobile and bed ridden.
13. Infact, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards
loss of future prospects which he is legally entitled to, since the first
respondent/claimant has sustained grievous injuries and the disability caused
to him by the said injuries are permanent in nature. The total compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the first respondent/claimant at
Rs.17,07,346/- cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the
Appellant Insurance Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2838 of 2014
14. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. The Appellant
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount awarded by the
Tribunal, after deducting the amount already deposited if any, together with
interest from the date of claim till the date of deposit and costs to the credit of
MCOP.No.104 of 2009 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this Judgement. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall
transfer the amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.104 of 2009 to the bank
account of the first respondent /claimant directly through RTGS within a
period of one week thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.09.2021
nl
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2838 of 2014
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2838 of 2014
C.M.A.No.2838 of 2014
29.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
