Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs C.Deenadayalan on 25 March, 2022
C.M.A.No.602 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3696 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.602 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3696 of 2020
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
No.1, Bharathi Road,
Arcot Woodlands Building,
Cuddalore. ... Appellant
Vs
1.C.Deenadayalan
2.Mangaiyarkarasi Ammal ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award and Decree dated
12.02.2019 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.2456 of 2015 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Court),
Cuddalore.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.602 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3696 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.B.R.Shankaralingam
for R1
R2 - Given up
JUDGMENT
The Appellant/Insurance Company has preferred the appeal
challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal Subordinate Court at Cuddalore in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.2456 of
2015.
2. The facts in brief are as follows:
The claimant, who is aged about 45 years and working as a post-
man under the Indian Postal Department had met with an accident on
21.03.2015, while driving a two wheeler on the Sirkazhi to
Mayiladudurai road. While, he was so proceeding, the first respondent's
bus bearing Registration No.TN-31-K-7308 coming in the opposite
direction in a rash and negligent manner had hit the petitioner's Scooty
and as a result of the accident, the petitioner was thrown out of his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.602 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3696 of 2020
vehicle and had sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures all
over his body and head. He was immediately taken to the Government
Hospital at Mayiladudurai and thereafter, transfered to the Rajiv Gandhi
Government General Hospital, Chennai for advanced treatment. He had
claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation.
3. The first respondent remained exparte and it was the second
respondent/Insurance Company who had entered vakalat and filed a
counter inter-alia denying the nature of the accident and also contending
that the claimant had to prove that the driver of the first respondent
vehicle had valid driving license. It was their contention that the accident
had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the
petitioner, which had resulted in the accident and therefore, he was not
entitled to any compensation.
4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate
Court, Cuddalore, by its order dated 12.02.2019 had passed an award for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.602 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3696 of 2020
a sum of Rs.14,68,000/-. The Tribunal had calculated the compensation
under the head of disability by adopting a multiplier method, totally
overlooking the fact that the claimant had continued his avocation and
there was no loss of earning on his side. The Tribunal had also
apportioned the liability on the claimant, who was found to have
consumed alcohol, at the time of the accident.
5. The Insurance Company had also questioned the huge amount
which has been granted under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of
amenities and future medical expenses.
6. The counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant / 1st respondent
would submit that the claimant had suffered the permanent disability and
therefore, the adoption of the multiplier method was in keeping with the
judicial pronouncements. That apart, the Tribunal had not granted any
income under the head of loss of income for the period of four months
from when the claimant was unable to attend his work.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.602 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3696 of 2020
7. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/
Insurance Company, there is no proof to show that there has been any
restriction for the claimant in his day to day activities or that he has not
been able to attend his work. Therefore, the adoption of multiplier
method is definitely wrong. The Medical Board as per Ex.C1 had
assessed the disability at 31.5%. Therefore, adopting the notional income
of Rs.4,000/-, the disability at 31.5%, the claimant would be entitled to a
sum of Rs.1,26,000/- under the head of disability. The amounts granted
under the heads of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and future
medical expenses as stated by the counsel for the appellant is on the
higher side, particularly taking into account the fact that the appellant
had been able to rejoin his duty within a short period. Therefore, the
amounts under the heads of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.602 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3696 of 2020
reduced to a sum of Rs.75,000/- each. Likewise, the amounts awarded
under the head of future medical expenses is reduced to a sum of
Rs.50,000/-. The claimant was not able to attend his duty for four
months, the Tribunal has not taken note of the fact that the claimant's
salary as per Ex.P8 was a sum of Rs.34,496/- and the same is rounded off
to Rs.34,495/-. For four months, the loss of income would be a sum of
Rs.1,37,980/-. Therefore, the modified award would be as follows:
Heads Amount
awarded by this
Court in Rs.
Disability 1,26,000
Pain and sufferings 75,000
Loss of amenities 75,000
Attender charges 25,000
Transportation 25,000
Future Medical Expenses 50,000
Extra Nourishment 25,000
Loss of clothing 5,000
Loss of Income 1,37,980
Total 5,43,980
Rs.5,43,980/- Rounded off to Rs.5,44,000/- together with interest
at a rate of 7.5% from 06.11.2015 till the date of deposit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.602 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3696 of 2020
9. The Tribunal has apportioned the liability as 10:90. The
apportionment has been made on the basis of the First Information
Report. There is a reference that there was a smell of Alcohol in breathe.
However, there is no proof let in to show that the injured was in an
intoxicated state, as a result of which, the accident had occurred. In fact
there was no cross-examination in this regard also. Therefore, the
Insurance Company has not been able to establish the fact that the
claimant had contributed to the accident by reason of him being
intoxicated. Therefore, the apportionment of the liability on the part of
the claimant is rejected and the entire liability is fixed on the Insurance
Company.
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and
the compensation of Rs.13,21,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby
reduced to a sum of Rs.5,44,000/- together with interest @ 7.5 % per
annum from 06.11.2015 till the date of deposit. The said amount shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.602 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3696 of 2020
paid by the Appellant /2nd respondent. The claimant is permitted to
withdraw the amount now determined by this Court, along with interest
and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn. Since the
appellant / Insurance Company has already deposited 50% of the award
amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2456 of 2015 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Court),
Cuddalore. the appellant/Insurance Company is now permitted to
withdraw the excess award amount if any deposited by them. No costs.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order:Yes / No
ab/ssn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.602 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3696 of 2020
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal Subordinate Court,
Cuddalore.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.602 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3696 of 2020
P.T.ASHA, J.,
ab/ssn
C.M.A.No.602 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.3696 of 2020
25.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
