Madras High Court
The Manager vs M.Krishnaraj on 9 March, 2022
C.M.A. No.469 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A. No.469 of 2022
and CMP.No.3428 of 2022
The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
19, Reliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 031. ...appellant
Vs.
1. M.Krishnaraj
2. Mahesh Kalluprasad Sahu ...respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2018
passed in MCOP.No.162 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court No.II, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Bhuvanasundari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/7
C.M.A. No.469 of 2022
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J]
The appeal is heard through video conferencing.
2. This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Judge No.II, Salem in MCOP.No.162 of 2013,
dated 07.09.2018.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on 19.12.2012 at about 7.00 p.m.,
he was standing on the left side of a road at Salem-Kovai National
Highways near Uddamasolapuram Melapalam. At that time, a Lorry bearing
Registration No.MH-31-DS-9343, driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner, hit him. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries
all over his body and immediately, he was admitted in Vinayaga Mission
Hi-Tech Hospital, Salem and then shifted to Manipal Hospital, Omalur for
further treatment.
4. It is his further case that he was 35 year old at the time of the
accident and doing handloom business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/7
C.M.A. No.469 of 2022
however, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he is not in a position
to continue his avocation, hence, he filed a petition seeking compensation
of Rs.10,00,000/- from the owner as well as the insurer of the Lorry.
5. The Insurance Company filed their counter statement disputing the
manner of accident as projected by the claimants, age, occupation and
income of the injured claimant 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 totally 12 documents. On the side of the
Insurance Company, neither any oral evidence was adduced nor document
was marked. Ex.C1 disability certificate was marked as Court Document.
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 Lorry and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of
Rs.19,32,036/- 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.469 of 2022
S. Heads under which the amount Amount in Rs.
No. is awarded by the Tribunal
1. Loss of Income 12,90,240
2. Pain and Sufferings 20,000
3. Loss of Estate 20,000
4. Medical and Transportation Expenses 5,86,296
5. Nutrition Charges 7,500
6. Attender Charges 7,500
Total 19,32,036
8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company that though the claimant suffered minor injuries, but the Tribunal
assessed his disability at 80%, which is not proper. Further, the amounts
awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are on the higher side and
they have to be substantially scaled down.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused
the materials available on record.
10. A perusal of the records would show that the claimant was doing
handloom business and due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/7
C.M.A. No.469 of 2022
he could not continue his avocation. The claimant appeared before the
Medical Board to assess the disability and produced Disability Certificate,
which was marked as Ex.C1. The Tribunal, by relying upon Exs.P3 to P12
Medical Certificates and Ex.C1 Disability Certificate, had rightly fixed the
disability of the claimant as 80%, hence, we find no merit in the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
11. With regard to quantum, the Tribunal considering the evidence of
P.W.1 and the age of the claimant and date of accident, had fixed the
notional monthly income as Rs.6,000/- and adopted correct multiplier of 16
by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarala
Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another
reported in 2009 TN MAC 1, and 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/7
C.M.A. No.469 of 2022
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
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]
09.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes/No
pvs
To
1. The Special Sub Judge No.II,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem
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.469 of 2022
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
pvs
C.M.A. No.469 of 2022
and CMP.No.3428 of 2022
09.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7/7
