Madras High Court
The Manager vs [email protected] ...1St on 5 January, 2022
C.M.A.(MD)No.700 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD)No.700 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7099 of 2020
The Manager,
Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Chennai -1. ...Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
[email protected] ...1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.Shanthi Gears Limited,
No.304 A, Trichy Salai,
Singanallur,
Coimbatore Town & District ...2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.720
of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional
District & Special Judge, Pudukkottai, dated 12.09.2019.
For Appellant :Ms.K.R.Shivashankari
For R1 :Mr.Prasanna Rajadurai
for Mr.S.Muthalraj
For R2 :No Appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.700 of 2020
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the
judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.720 of 2016 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Special Judge,
Pudukkottai, dated 12.09.2019.
2.It is a case of accident, which took place on 19.05.2016, when the
claimant travelled as a pillion rider in his friend's two wheeler bearing
Registration No.TN-37-CJ-0039, at about 01.00 a.m. they came near opposite
to Singanallur Jaishanthi Theatre at Trichy – Singanallur Main Road, a bus
bearing Registration No.TN-37-AP-1122 came behind the two wheeler in a
rash and negligent manner dashed against the two wheeler. Due to the said
accident, the first respondent/petitioner sustained fracture on the left leg and
also sustained multiple injuries all over his body.
3.The claimant has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.720 of 2016
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District and
Special Judge, Pudukkottai, seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.700 of 2020
4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, three witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to
P.7. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no document
was marked.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the claimant and the
respondent and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held that the
accident occurred only, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the first respondent and directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of
Rs.7,18,950/- as compensation. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the
Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6.Heard Ms.K.R.Shivashankari, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.Prasana Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent. No representation on behalf of the second respondent.
7.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that though there is
no functional disability, the Tribunal has wrongly adopted multiplier method
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.700 of 2020
and awarded Rs.6,12,000/- towards permanent disability. He further
contended that the claimant has not produced any document to prove his
income, the Tribunal has wrongly fixed Rs.10,000/- as monthly income.
Hence, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to
be modified.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent/petitioner contended that the petitioner has sustained fracture and
injuries all over the body and suffered 30% of partial permanent disability
and the Tribunal, after considering all the circumstances has rightly awarded
Rs.6,12,000/- towards permanent disability and therefore, the award passed
by the Tribunal is perfectly correct and the same needs no interference.
9.A perusal of the records shows that the claimant was admitted in
Geethanjali Hospital, Trichy and took treatment as inpatient from 24.05.2016
to 28.05.2016 for injuries sustained by him. It is seen from the case summary
(Ex.P3) that he had suffered fracture on bones in his leg and also steel plate
was fixed. Dr.Gopalakrishnan (PW3) had assessed the partial permanent
disability as 30% and in his evidence, he stated that the claimant cannot do
any work as done prior to the accident. But without any document to prove
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.700 of 2020
his income, the Tribunal has wrongly fixed as Rs.10,000/- as monthly
income. Hence, this Court fixed Rs.8,000/- as monthly income of the
claimant. As per evidence of PW3, the claimant suffered functional
disability, hence multiplier method has to be adopted. Therefore, loss of
income arrived at Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 30% x17 = Rs.4,89,600/-. Since the
claimant had suffered fracture only in leg, Rs.50,000/- awarded towards pain
and sufferings by the tribunal is very high. Hence, this Court awarded
Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Except the above, all other terms of
the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed.
10.Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for compensation as follows:
S.No. Head Amount granted by this
Court
1. Loss of income Rs.4,89,600/-
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/-
3. Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/-
4. Medical Bills Rs. 16,950/-
5. Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
6. Transportation Rs. 10,000/-
7. Attendant charge Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.5,76,550/-
with interest at 7.5% p.a., as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of claim
petition till the date of realization.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.700 of 2020
11.In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced
from Rs.7,18,950/- to Rs.5,76,550/- which would carry interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum.
(iii) It is submitted that the appellant/ Insurance Company had already
deposited the entire award amount with accrued interest and therefore, the
appellant is permitted to withdraw the excess amount with proportionate
interest.
(iv) The claimant is also permitted to withdraw the entire award
amount with proportionate interests and costs, by filing necessary
application. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
05.01.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsd
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.700 of 2020
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District & Special Judge,
Pudukkottai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.700 of 2020
S.ANANTHI, J.
vsd
C.M.A.(MD)No.700 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7099 of 2020
05.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
