The Divisional Manager vs Narmadhadevi
2022 Latest Caselaw 338 Mad

                                                                              CMA.No.3636 of 2021
                                                                          and CMP. No.21321 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                DATED: 06.01.2022
                                                     CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                              CMA.No.3636 of 2021
                                                     and
                                              CMP.No.21321 of 2021

                     The Divisional Manager,
                     National Insurance Company Ltd.,
                     Jawaharlal Nehru Street,
                     Puducherry.                                                    ...Appellant

                                                         Vs.

                     1.Narmadhadevi

                     2.Narasingu                                                 ..Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                     Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2021 passed in
                     MACTOP.No.42 of 2019 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims
                     Tribunal, Puducherry.


                                         For Appellant     : MrsR.Rathna Thara




                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 CMA.No.3636 of 2021
                                                                             and CMP. No.21321 of 2021




                                                   JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the Insurance Company, which did not even to

let in evidence before the Tribunal.

2.The accident occurred when the claimant was travelling as a

pillion rider. The Tribunal had found that the accident had occurred due to

the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler. The Tribunal fixed negligence

on the part of the two wheeler and held that as the insurer of the two

wheeler, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

3.On the quantum, though the Medical Board had assessed the

disability at 30%, the Tribunal found that the claimant, whose left leg was

affected by polio has lost her right leg in accident. Since her right leg is

rendered disfunctional she is unable to walk and she has to be carried to

Court. Upon seeing the status of the claimant, the Tribunal had fixed the

disability at 50% and adopted notional income of Rs.8,000/-.By adding 40%

towards future prospects, the Tribunal assessed the loss of earning capacity

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3636 of 2021 and CMP. No.21321 of 2021

at Rs.12,10,000/-. Considering the fact that the claimant is a 22 years old

girl, who is unable to walk, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-

towards loss of marital prospects, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and

suffering, Rs.1,00,000/- for assistance, Rs.1,21,000/- for medical expenses,

Rs.18,000/- for travel expenses and Rs.25,000/- for extra nourishment. In

all, a sum of Rs.19,74,000/- has been awarded.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company

would vehemently contend that the Tribunal should have deducted certain

percentage for contributory negligence. She would also further contend that

since the claimant had completed her education and had obtained her

graduation in Computer Sciene and has also further pursued education, the

Tribunal was not right in adopting multiplier method. The learned counsel

would also contend that the quantum of compensation is unreasonably high

and that is because of the Tribunal adopting the multiplier method. I am

unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3636 of 2021 and CMP. No.21321 of 2021

5.As regards the contributory negligence, the Insurance Company

has not chosen to let in any evidence. No one has been examined on the side

of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has gone into the question of

negligence and held that from the First Information Report, it is seen that the

driver of the two wheeler was negligent and was responsible for the accident.

Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings on the

negligence.

6.As regards the quantum, the learned Tribunal has found that the

both legs of the claimant have become disfunctional due to the accident and

she has to be carried to the Court. Considering the fact that the claimant is

a 22 years old, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss

of marital prospects and going by her condition, the Tribunal has held that

the multiplier method should be adopted to asses the compensation for loss

of earning capacity. The sum of Rs.8,000/- adopted as notional income, in

my opinion, is very low. However, since the claimant is not on appeal, I do

not propose to go into the correctness in the appeal filed by the Insurance

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3636 of 2021 and CMP. No.21321 of 2021

Company.

7. I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the

Tribunal. This civil miscellaneous appeal therefore, fails and it is

accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

06.01.2022

kkn

Index:No Internet:Yes Speaking

To:-

The Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.3636 of 2021 and CMP. No.21321 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

KKN

CMA.No.3636 of 2021 and CMP.No.21321 of 2021

06.01.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis