Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs M.Abdul Kuthus on 28 April, 2022
C.M.A. No.1037 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A. No.1037 of 2022
and CMP.No.7643 of 2022
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rais Towers, 2nd Floor, No.2054,
2nd Avenue, Next to GRP Jewelery,
Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. ...appellant
Vs.
1. M.Abdul Kuthus
2. V.Sudarson ...respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2021
passed in MCOP.No.3920 of 2016, by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal/II Additional District Court, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mrs.C.Bhuvanasundari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/6
C.M.A. No.1037 of 2022
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J]
This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal/ II Additional District Court, Cuddalore in MCOP.No.3920
of 2016, dated 14.09.2021.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 14.08.2015 at 1.00 am, he was
driving his Car on Chengalpattu-Chennai National Highway. When he was
nearing Akshaya Apartment at Guduvanchery, a Car bearing Registration
No.TN-67-AS-4728 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent
manner, hit the centre median, crossed the road and hit the claimant's
vehicle. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained injury all over his body.
Immediately, he was admitted in Chengalpattu Government Hospital and
later, he was referred to BMS Hospital, Pondicherry and then referred to
MIOT Hospital. Hence, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- as
compensation.
3. The Insurance Company filed their counter statement disputing the
manner of accident as projected by the claimants, age, occupation and
income of the claimant and their liability to pay the compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/6
C.M.A. No.1037 of 2022
4. To substantiate the case, on the side of the claimant, he examined
himself as PW1 and marked totally 16 documents. On the side of the
Insurance Company, neither any oral evidence was adduced nor document
was marked. Ex.C1 disability certificate was marked as Court Document.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence,
held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.TN-67-AS-4728 and directed
the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.28,65,380/- as compensation.
The break-up details of the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various
heads are as follows:
S. Heads under which the amount Amount in Rs.
No. is awarded by the Tribunal
1. Loss of Income & Permanent Disability 6,99,300
2. Pain and Sufferings, mental agony 1,65,000
3. For Loss of amenities 1,00,000
4. Extra Nourishment 36,000
5. Attender Charges 10,000
6. For Transport to Hospital 1,02,600
7. Medical Bills 17,02,480
8. Future Medical Bills 50,000
Total 28,65,380
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/6
C.M.A. No.1037 of 2022
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company that though the claimant has not produced any documentary
evidence to prove his income, but the Tribunal fixed notional monthly
income as Rs.9,000/-, which is on the higher side.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused
the materials available on record.
8. A perusal of the records would show that the claimant was a
driver and due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he could not
continue his avocation. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1 and
the age of the claimant on the date of accident, had fixed the notional
monthly income as Rs.9,000/- and adopted correct multiplier of 14 by
following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma
and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in
2009 TN MAC 1, and awarded a just and reasonable compensation.
Further, the quantum of compensation under remaining heads fixed by the
Tribunal are reasonable. We find no reason to interfere with the conclusion
reached by the Tribunal.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/6
C.M.A. No.1037 of 2022
the same is dismissed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the award amount with accrued 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. On such deposit, the claimant is
permitted to withdraw the award amount, less the amount already
withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate interest and costs. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[M.K.K.S, J] [V.S.G., J]
28.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes/No
pvs
To
1. The II Additional District Court, Cuddalore
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/6
C.M.A. No.1037 of 2022
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
pvs
C.M.A. No.1037 of 2022
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/6
