Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Balakrishnan on 19 January, 2022
C.M.A. No.31 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A. No.31 of 2022
and CMP.No.199 of 2022
The Branch Manager,
Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
E-8, Rico Industrial Rico,
Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ...appellant
Vs.
1. Balakrishnan
2. Ganesan ...respondents
[The second respondent herein remained exparte,
hence notice may be dispensed with]
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2020 made
in MCOP.No.303 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Paranthaman
for Mr.K.Poomalai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/7
C.M.A. No.31 of 2022
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.SIVAGNANAM, J]
The appeal is heard through video conferencing.
2. This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri in MCOP.No.303
of 2015, dated 10.01.2020.
3. It is the case of the claimant/first respondent that on 20.07.2014 at
about 8.00 am, he was travelling as a helper in the Maruthi Suzuki Eco
Ambulance bearing Registration No.TN-29-AM-4843 from Rayakottai to
Dharmapuri Road. When the Ambulance was nearing Ramakkal Lake Petrol
Bunk, the driver of the Ambulance had driven the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the center median. Due to the impact, the claimant
sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was admitted in the
Government Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri, wherein first aid
treatment was given and later, he was referred to the Ganga Hospital,
Coimbatore for further treatment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/7
C.M.A. No.31 of 2022
4. It is the further case of the claimant that he was working as a helper
in the Ambulance and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and due to the
accident, he is not in a position to continue his avocation, hence, he laid a
claim petition for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.
5. The Insurance Company filed their counter statement disputing the
manner of accident as projected by the claimants, age, occupation and
income of the deceased and their liability to pay the compensation.
6. To substantiate the case on the side of the claimant, he examined
himself as PW1 and marked 9 documents. On the side of the Insurance
Company, neither any oral evidence was adduced nor document was
marked.
7. 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 Ambulance and directed the Insurance Company to pay a
sum of Rs.21,20,000/- as 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.3/7
C.M.A. No.31 of 2022
S. Heads under which the amount Amount in Rs.
No. is awarded by the Tribunal
1. Permanent Disability 11,88,000
2. Medical Bills 4,70,000
3. Transport to Hospital 30,000
4. Extra Nourishment 12,000
5. Pain and Sufferings 4,00,000
6. Future Medical Expenses 4,00,000
Total 21,20,000
8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company that though the claimant suffered only minor injuries, the
Tribunal assessed his disability at 50%, which is not proper. Further, the
claimant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove his income,
but the Tribunal fixed notional monthly income exorbitantly at Rs.9,000/-.
9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
10. A perusal of the records would show that the claimant was
working as helper in the Ambulance and due to the injuries sustained by
him in the accident, he could not continue his avocation. The claimant
appeared before the Medical Board and produced Disability Certificate,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/7
C.M.A. No.31 of 2022
which was marked as Ex.P9. The Tribunal by relying upon Ex.P8 wound
certificate and Ex.P9 Disability Certificate had rightly arrived the disability
of the claimant at 50%, hence we find no merit in the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
11. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal considering the
evidence of P.W.1 and considering the age of the claimant and date of
accident, had fixed the monthly income and adopting correct multiplier by
following the decision 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 under
remaining heads fixed by the Tribunal are reasonable. We find no reason to
interfere with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal.
12. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/7
C.M.A. No.31 of 2022
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]
19.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes/No
pvs
To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/7
C.M.A. No.31 of 2022
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
pvs
C.M.A. No.31 of 2022
19.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7/7
