Madras High Court

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Rajiv Gandhi on 14 June, 2022

                                                                          C.M.A.No.1634 of 2020

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 14.06.2022

                                                       CORAM :

                                      THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                                C.M.A.No.1634 of 2020
                                      and C.M.P.No.12050 of 2020 and 15766 of 2021

                     Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
                     No.66, Sri Ram General Syed Thirumallai
                     Pillai Road,
                     Inside City Centre Complex,
                     T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.                           ...Appellant
                                                      Vs.
                     1. Rajiv Gandhi
                     2. Murugan                                        ... Respondents

                     Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section
                     173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award and decree dated
                     13.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.193 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
                     Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Vaniyambadi.

                                       For Appellant    : Mr.S.Dhakshinamoorthy
                                       For Respondent-1 : Mr.P.Prakash
                                       For Respondent-2 : Not ready in notice

                                                    JUDGMENT

The Insurance Company is the appellant before this Court,

challenging the Award passed in M.C.O.P.No.193 of 2013 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Vaniyambadi.

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

C.M.A.No.1634 of 2020

2. The facts in brief are as follows:

The first respondent herein had filed the above M.C.O.P. claiming

compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by

him in a road accident. It is his case that, on 15.05.2013 at about 18.00

hrs, when he was returning from work in his two wheeler, bearing

Registration No.TN-01-P-8266 and proceeding on the Vellore to

Vaniyambadi Road, a Tipper lorry bearing Registration

No.TN-55-P-0249 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit him from

behind, as a result of which, the first respondent had sustained grievous

injuries. The lorry belonged to the first respondent and was insured with

the appellant-Insurance Company. The first respondent would contend

that he is working as an Auditor in M/s. Florance Shoe Company at

Ambur.

3. The first respondent before the Tribunal had remained

ex-parte and it was the appellant-Insurance Company, which had

contested the claim. They had denied the nature of the injuries sustained

by the first respondent and also the fact that the driver of the first

respondent's Tipper lorry was rash and negligent.

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

C.M.A.No.1634 of 2020

4. The Tribunal below, on considering the evidence on record,

held that the accident was solely on account of rash and negligent driving

by the driver of the first respondent's Tipper lorry. Thereafter, the

Tribunal, taking into account the 70% disability assessed by the Medical

Board as per Ex.C-1, fixed the monthly income at Rs.15,000/- and held

that 70% constituted the loss of future income. Therefore, the loss was

fixed at a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- per annum (15,000 x 12 months x 70%).

The Tribunal had adopted multiplier 17 for arriving at the compensation

of Rs.21,42,000/- (1,26,000 x 17) under the head of Loss of Income.

Aggrieved by the adoption of multiplier method, the Insurance Company

is before this Court.

5. Mr.S.Dhakshinamoorthy, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the there

is no proof on the side of the first respondent/claimant to show that, by

reason of the injuries, he has been unable to continue his earlier work and

that his future prospects have been affected. In fact, the learned counsel

would submit that the first respondent has not let in any evidence to show

that he has not been employed after the accident or that he had suffered

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

C.M.A.No.1634 of 2020

any loss of income. The learned counsel would therefore submit that

correct method, which should have been adopted, for calculating the loss

of income on the basis of the disability is "percentage method" and not

"multiplier method" as adopted by the Tribunal. Considering the year of

the accident, the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the

first respondent as Rs.4,000/-. The appellant fairly conceded that there is

no quarrel with reference to percentage of disability awarded by the

Medical Board twice. He would therefore, seek to have the appeal

allowed.

6. Per contra, Mr.P.Prakash, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the first respondent/claimant would reiterate that the injuries

sustained by the first respondent are grievous and it has affected the

future prospects. Therefore, the adoption of multiplier method is very

much in order.

7. Heard both learned counsels and perused the materials

available on record.

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

C.M.A.No.1634 of 2020

8. A perusal of Exs.P3 and P4, which are the Discharge

Summaries would indicate that the first respondent/claimant has suffered

"Post Traumatic Circumferential Raw Area Right Leg Undisplaced

Fracture Left Tibia with AK Slab in Situ", for which, he has undergone

debridement and split thickness skin grafting. A perusal of Ex.P3 would

indicate that on the date of discharge, the condition of the first

respondent/claimant was satisfactory. The first respondent had only been

directed to undergo physiotherapy exercises. Pursuant to the orders of

this Court dated 04.03.2022, the first respondent was once again assessed

by the District Medical Board, Tirupattur District and the certificate

issued by the Board is produced before this Court. It would show that

the Medical Board had once again assessed the disability at 70%. The

Medical Board has however not referred to the earlier discharge

summaries issued by the Christian Medical College, Vellore under

Exs.P3 and P4. These exhibits would clearly indicate that the first

respondent/claimant has not undergone any loss of future income and

that the injuries sustained by him has not acted as a fetter to his earning

capacity. Further, Ex.P3 indicates that on the date of his discharge, the

condition of the first respondent was satisfactory. Therefore, the

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

C.M.A.No.1634 of 2020

adoption of multiplier method by the Tribunal below is clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, the amount under the head of Loss of Income has to be

worked out by adopting an income of Rs.4,000/- per percent and when

taking in 70% disability, the amount due under this head would be a sum

of Rs.2,80,000/- (4,000 x 70%). In all other respects, the impugned

Award of the Tribunal is reasonable. The amount granted under the head

of "Loss of Income" is reduced from a sum of Rs.21,42,000/- to

Rs.2,80,000/-.

9. The reduced award is tabulated hereunder:

                                            Heads               Amount by the     Amount Awarded by
                                                                  Tribunal           this Court
                                                                     in Rs.             in Rs.
                                  Loss of Disability                  21,42,000                  2,80,000


                                  Partial loss of earning               90,000                    90,000
                                  Loss of Pain and suffering             75000                     75000
                                  Medical expenses                     1,97,762                  1,97,762
                                  Extra Nourishment                     10,000                     10,000
                                  Attender Charges                      50,000                     50,000
                                  Loss of Amenities                     10,000                     10,000
                                  Transport Expenses                   1,00,000                  1,00,000
                                                        Total         26,74,762                  8,12,762
                                            Rounded Off to            26,74,000                  8,12,800



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

                                                                              C.M.A.No.1634 of 2020

10.. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed

and the compensation of Rs.26,74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is

hereby reduced to a sum of Rs.8,12,800/- 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.8,12,800/- to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.193 of 2013 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 period of six weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgement. On such deposit being made, the first

respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount now

determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, after adjusting