Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs S.K.Bharath on 8 March, 2022
CMA.No.2304 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CMA.No.2304 of 2018
and
CMP.No.17593 of 2018
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Division Office 710900, Garden Apartments,
No.68, P.H.Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai – 7. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.S.K.Bharath
2.K.V.Subadhra
3.M/s.Empees International Hotels and Resorts Ltd.,
No.693, Mount Road, Chennai – 28.
(R3 before the Tribunal died in the course of trial.
Hence R3 is not arrayed as a party to the proceedings.) ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 28.02.2018 made in
MCOP No.1278 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
/ Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran
For R2 : Mr.A.Babu
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2304 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The 2nd respondent in MCOP No.1278 of 2009 on the file Chief
Court of Small Causes, Chennai / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the
appellant herein, aggrieved with the quantum of compensation granted by
award dated 28.02.2018 which compensation was granted owing to the
unfortunate death of the wife of the 1st claimant, Mythili Bharath who was
also the sister of the 2nd and the 3rd claimants. The accident occured on
27.04.2008, when Mythili was travelling as passenger in an autorickshaw
bearing registration No.TN-07-H-9805 at around 12.30 p.m from T.Nagar to
Mandaiveli on Chamiers road from west to east, opposite to Tumbulls signal.
At that time, a Tata Indigo car bearing registration No.TN-01-AB-3646 came
from east to west and dashed against the autorickshaw. It was stated that
there was a signal for the car to stop, but the car did not stop in the signal
and jumped the signal and dashed on the auto and as a result, the auto
capsized and over turned. The deceased fell down and suffered serious
injuries in her spinal column and lungs. Immediately, thereafter she was
admitted in Venkateswara Hospital for one day and later referred to Apollo
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2304 of 2018
Speciality Hospital. She took treatment from 28.04.2008 to 12.08.2008 as
an inpatient and again from 02.09.2008 to 03.10.2008 and also again from
03.11.2208 to 18.11.2008 and she died on 18.11.2008.
2.One fact that must be kept in mind was the substantial period of
hospitalization at Apollo Speciality Hospital. Medical records with respect to
same had also been produced. Claiming that compensation should be
granted for the death of Mythili Bharat, her husband and her two sisters had
filed MCOP.No.1278 of 2009.
3.During the course of trial, the 1st claimant S.K.Bharat was
examined as PW-1 and another witness S.K.Lakshmanan was examined as
PW-2. On the side of the petitioner, Exs.P1 to P23 were marked. Relevant
documents would be the copy of First Information Report Ex.P2, the
discharge summary issued by Venkateswara Hospital and series of discharge
summary issued by the Apollo Speciality Hospital, which were marked as
Exs.P3, P5, P7 and P9 and also the medical bills which were marked as
Exs.P4, P6, P8, P12 and P14. Ex.P13 has also to be examined, namely,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2304 of 2018
Identity card and Log book issued by Unit Trust of India / New India
Assurance Company Limited. On the side of the respondents, RW-1
S.Saravanan, an official from hospital of Venkateswara was examined and
he marked Ex.R2 copy of the medical bills issued by Venkateswara hospital,
which is actually equivalent to Ex.P4.
4.The Tribunal by its judgment dated 28.02.2018, framed the
points for determination with respect to the nature of the accident and
whether it was owing to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent
and as to who is liable to pay the compensation and the compensation
amount actually payable.
5.With respect to the first point, the Tribunal came to a definite
finding that the accident was caused only by the rash and negligent driving
of the Tata Indigo car bearing Regn. No.TN-07-AB-3646 and it was also
noted that owing to the impact of the accident, the auto over turned and the
unfortunate victim, Mythili Bharat, had been caught in between and suffered
serious injuries, which necessitated being in hospital in four spells namely,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2304 of 2018
the first spell in Venkateswara Hospital and later three spells in Apollo
Speciality Hospital. She finally died. Therefore, the negligence was fixed on
the driver of the Tata Indigo car bearing Regn. No.TN-07-AB-3646. I would
confirm such finding.
6.Thereafter, the Tribunal determined the issue No.2 stating that
the insurer of the Tata Indigo car will have to pay the compensation and
answered the point accordingly and I would also affirm the said finding.
7.This appeal is primarily focussed on the quantum granted. The
Tribunal had granted a total compensation of Rs.22,34,384/-. It observed
that the deceased was earning pension of Rs.9,500/- and deducted 50%
towards personal expenses. It applied the multiplier of 7. There is no issue
on the aforementioned method in which the compensation was determined.
The Tribunal also granted amounts towards loss of consortium to the 1 st
petitioner and loss of estate and also towards funeral expenses. No issues are
raised with respect to the same. Let me also not intefere with those findings.
The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.17,65,384/- towards medical expenses
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2304 of 2018
and had actually observed that the total medical bills incurred was
Rs.19,67,200/- and adjusted Rs.3,00,000/- which had been paid by United
Trust of India for which Ex.P13 had been marked on behalf of the claimants
and the balance medical bills had been granted as they were presented as
documents.
8.Learned counsel for the appellant took umbrage at that
particular fact and stated that the medical bills produced were duplicate
copies and no reliance should have been placed by the Tribunal on such
medical bills.
9.This necessitated, examination of the records as marked before
the Tribunal. The records were also available. As a fact, medical bills with
respect to Apollo Speciality Hospital namely, Exs.P6, P8 and P12 were
duplicate copies. The duplicate copies had been marked since the claim for
the medical bills for Rs.19,67,200/- had been preferred by the claimants and
forwarded to United Trust of India seeking a claim under a scheme, which
the deceased had been eligible. The United Trust of India / New India
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2304 of 2018
Assurance Company Limited, had however granted only a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/-. This necessitated claiming the balance in the claim petition
before the Tribunal.
10.The bills presented are not xerox copies. They cannot be
strictly construed as secondary evidence. They are duplicate bills which are
copies of the original prepared and attested as duplicate bills by the Apollo
Speciality Hospital. Therefore, I would not enter any adverse finding with
respect to admissibility of such document. I would taken them on record.
The amount reflected the amount paid by the claimants towards medical
treatment of the deceased Mythili Bharat. The dates in which she had been
in hospital had been stated by me and I would also observe quite extensive
treatment had been given in three different spells. Naturally, expenses would
have been incurred by the claimants towards treatment in the hope that
Mythili Bharat would recover. But she unfortunately died. I would not
interfere with the quantum granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2304 of 2018
11.Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, however, placed a small
caveat claiming that the 2nd claimant / sister of the deceased had actually
spent a substantial amount for the medical treatment and had also pointed
out the proof affidavit of the 1st claimant / husband of the deceased, wherein,
he had stated that he had no objection for apportionment of the award
amount into two equal halves, one to be paid to him and the other to the 2nd
respondent. It is to be noted that the 3rd claimant another sister of the
deceased had died pending the claim petition.
12.I would go with the representations made and interfere with the
apportionment granted. The Tribunal had recognized the services of the
sister to a very negligible extent and had granted a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- to
be paid to the 1st claimant and balance Rs.1,34,384/- to be paid to the 2nd
claimant. I would interfere with that finding and rather divide the award into
two equal halves namely, 50% to the 1 st claimant S.K.Bharath and balance
50% to the 2nd claimant K.V.Subadhra. This apportionment would also
accrued to the interest which would have accrued to the amount already
deposited. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2304 of 2018
claim within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order at 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of
actual deposit and that amount must also be divided into two equal halves
between the 1st and 2nd claimant.
13.It is again reiterated that except the terms of apportionment, the
other aspects in the order are not interfered with.
14.With the above observations, the present Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.03.2022
smv
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
To:-
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Chief Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2304 of 2018
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
smv
CMA.No.2304 of 2018
and
CMP.No.17593 of 2018
08.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
