Madras High Court
The Manager vs C. Ayyappan on 5 August, 2022
C.M.A.No.600 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.600 of 2022
and
C.M.P.Nos.4323, 10384 and 10385 of 2022
The Manager,
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Third Party Claim Hub,
Silingi Building, IV Floor,
No.134, Greams Road,
Chennai 600 006 ... Appellant
vs.
1.C. Ayyappan
2. S. Balaji ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2019 in
M.C.O.P.No.2201 of 2016 passed by the II Court of Small Causes, MACT-
Chennai.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.600 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.Sankaranarayanan
For Respondent-1 :M/s.P.T.Saleem Fathima,
Caveator Counsel
JUDGMENT
The Appellant-Insurance Company has questioned the quantum of
compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of
Small Causes), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.2201 of 2016 as being on the higher
side.
2. The facts in brief are narrated herein below with the parties being
referred to in the same ranking as before the Tribunal.
3. The petitioner had filed the above claim petition seeking
compensation of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a
road accident on 14.03.2006 involving the first respondent's Tavera Car,
bearing Registration No.TN-222-DB-4898 which is insured with the second
respondent-Insurance Company. The petitioner had sustained the following
injuries:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.600 of 2022
“Fracture right pubic bone, with compound G3,
both bone fracture proximal 1/3rd of right leg and multiple
injuries all over the body”
The Insurance Company is aggrieved by the fact that the monthly notional
income has been fixed at a sum of Rs.20,000/- without there being any proof
for the same.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would
submit that except for stating that the petitioner is running a dairy farm, there
is no proof of the same but for the filing of certain payment receipts, all of
which look created for the purpose of getting a compensation.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent/petitioner would refute
the said statement.
6. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records available on
record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.600 of 2022
7. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company, Ex.P17 series, which are alleged payment receipts, does look
prepared for the sake of getting compensation as all the bills look identical and
appears to have been created on the same by the same person, therefore the
same has to be discarded. The accident had taken place on 14.03.2006 and the
first respondent/petitioner is aged about 42 years. Even assuming that he is
employed as a daily wage earner, he would definitely
earn a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the notional income is
reduced to a sum of Rs.12,000/-. Further, the Tribunal has fixed the disability
at 40% adopting the percentage that has been granted by the Medical Board
under Ex.C1 as the disability for calculating the loss of earning capacity.
Future prospects has not been taken into account by the Tribunal below.
Considering the age of the petitioner, 25% is added towards the future
prospects. The relevant multiplier is 14. Therefore, the compensation under
the head of disability would be Rs.10,80,000/- [Rs.12,000/- + 25% x 12 x 14
x 40%]. Therefore, the re-worked compensation would be as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.600 of 2022
Heads Amount by the Amount
Tribunal Awarded by
in Rs. this Court
in Rs.
Loss of Disability 13,44,000 10,08,000
Pain and Sufferings 2,00,000 2,00,000
Extra Nourishment 75,000 75,000
Transport to Hospital 50,000 50,000
Damages to clothes 1,000 1,000
Attender Charges 9,600 9,600
Medical Expenses 6,02,031 6,02,031
Future Medical Expenses 50,000 50,000
Loss of Income 60,000 60,000
Loss of Amenities 25,000 25,000
Total 24,16,631 20,80,631
8. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the compensation of Rs.24,16,631.00 awarded by the Tribunal is hereby
reduced to a sum of Rs.20,80,631.00 together with interest @ 7.5 % per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant-
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount Rs.20,80,631.00 to
the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2201 of 2016 together with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as
awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.600 of 2022
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. On
such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount
now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, as apportioned
by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount if any already withdrawn. In case
the Insurance Company has already deposited the Award amount, the
Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the same. No costs.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
05.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
srn
To
1. The II Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.600 of 2022
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
C.M.A.No.600 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.4323, 10384 and 10385 of 2022
05.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.600 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
