Madras High Court
The National Insurance Company ... vs Suresh Muthu @ Suresh on 5 January, 2022
C.M.A. No.652 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A. No.652 of 2020
and CMP.No.5677 of 2021
The National Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Having its Office at
Officers Line Vellore. ...appellant
Vs.
1. Suresh Muthu @ Suresh
2. Vinayaha Pipe Industries ...respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and decree passed in this matter by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Judge) at
Tiruvannamalai, in MCOP No.1546 of 2017, dated 02.04.2018 and allow
the appeal.
For Appellant : M/s.P.Sobana Devi
for M/s.R.Ravichandran
For Respondents
for R1 : Mr.S.S.Rajesh
for R2 : Set ex-parte before the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/8
C.M.A. No.652 of 2020
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J]
The appeal is heard through video conferencing.
2. This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Judge) at Tiruvannamalai in MCOP No.1546
of 2017, dated 02.04.2018.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.09.2013, at about
7.30 p.m., the claimant along with his family members, after attending a
function, were returning in a Toyota Innova Car bearing Registration
No.TN-20-CY-2050. While they were nearing a Primary Health Centre at
Periyakozhappalur Village, an Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.
TN-02-AE-8815, driven by its driver in the opposite direction, in a rash and
negligent manner had hit the Car. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained
multiple fracture on his right shoulder, right elbow, right hand, left thigh,
right thigh and his right hand got smashed in the said accident. Immediately,
the claimant was taken to the Christian Medical College and Hospital,
Vellore and then he was referred to MIOT Hospital, Chennai, wherein he
underwent plastic surgery. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Peranamallur Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/8
C.M.A. No.652 of 2020
Station, registered a case in Cr.No.224 of 2013 against the driver of the
second respondent's Eicher Lorry. Hence, the claimant laid a claim petition
for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/-.
4. 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.
5. To substantiate the case on the side of the claimant, PW1 and PW2
were examined and Exs.P1 to P38 were marked. On the side of the
Insurance Company, neither any oral evidence was adduced nor any
document was marked. The Court document Ex.C1 was marked.
6. 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 second respondent's vehicle. By coming to such
conclusion, the Tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs.19,70,800/- along
with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit
and directed the Insurance Company to pay the above compensation. The
break-up details of the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various
heads are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/8
C.M.A. No.652 of 2020
S. Heads under which the amount Amount in Rs.
No. is awarded by the Tribunal
1. Loss of Future Income 10,75,200
2. Pain & Sufferings 75,000
3. Medical Expenses 8,00,600
4. Transportation 10,000
5. Extra-nourishment 10,000
Total 19,70,800
Challenging the above compensation, the Insurance Company has preferred
this appeal.
7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company is with regard to the nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant. PW2, who is the father of the claimant, had
deposed that the Eicher Lorry just rubbed the Innova Car, in which the
claimant travelled, and sped away. Ex.P22 Motor Vehicle Inspector's report
reveals only minor damage to the said Car. If so, the claimant would not
have suffered serious injuries in the accident. Hence, 60% disability taken
by the Tribunal for calculating the Loss of Future Income, is on the higher
side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/8
C.M.A. No.652 of 2020
8. In reply, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that soon
after the accident, the claimant was taken to Christian Medical College and
Hospital, Vellore, wherein first aid treatment was given and subsequently,
he took treatment at MIOT Hospital as an in-patient from 02.09.2013 to
02.10.2013 and also from 20.11.2013 to 23.11.2013. In order to substantiate
the injuries sustained by the claimant, he produced Ex.P2 Accident Register
and Ex.P3 Discharge Summary.
9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
10. Perusal of records reveals that in the accident, the claimant
suffered severe injuries and he was admitted as in-patient in MIOT
Hospital, which is evident from EX.P3 discharge summary, wherein, the
cliamnt was diagnosed with i) Compound Grade 3 fracture both bone right
forearm, ii) Major Crush injury at right hand and iii) Fracture Olecranon.
Ex.P4 Discharge Summary, shows that there was Gangrene at the right
index and middle finger of the claimant and on 19.10.2013, both the fingers
were amputated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/8
C.M.A. No.652 of 2020
11. Further, the Tribunal referred the claimant to Medical Board at
Government Tiruvannamalai Medical College and Hospital to assess his
disability. After examining the claimant, the Medical Board opined that due
to the injuries, the claimant sustained 60% disability and the report of the
Medical Board was marked as Ex.P35. Since the Medical Board after
verifying the records assessed the percentage of disability sustained by the
claimant and the same was further verified and confirmed by the Tribunal,
we find no reason to interfere with the same.
12. With regard to the quantum, perusal of the records would show
that the Tribunal, considering Ex.P31 salary certificate and also considering
the age of the claimant had fixed the monthly income and by adopting
correct multiplier, and also by following the decision of the Supreme Court
in Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another reported in 2009 TN MAC 1, awarded a just and reasonable
compensation. Further, the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the other heads are fair. We find no reason to interfere with
the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/8
C.M.A. No.652 of 2020
13. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails
and 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]
05.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes/No
pvs
To
1. The Special District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Erode
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7/8
C.M.A. No.652 of 2020
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
pvs
C.M.A. No.652 of 2020
05.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.8/8
