Madras High Court
General Manager vs Angu Alias Angusami (Died) on 17 October, 2022
C.M.A.(MD)No.925 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.925 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.9115 of 2022
General Manager
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Tiruchi Branch – 1,
33, Promenade Road
Cantonment, Tiruchi – 1. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Angu alias Angusami (Died)
2.Devarajan
3.A.Padma
4.Minor A.Sathiavani
(respondents 3 and 4 are brought on
record as LRS of the deceased 1st
respondent vide Court order dated
30.01.2018 made in M.P.(MD)Nos.1
to 3 of 2010 in C.M.A.(MD)SR.No.
588 of 2007) ... Respondents
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
03.07.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.1946 of 2001 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court) (I Additional District Judge
(PCR)) incharge, Trichy and allow this civil miscellaneous appeal.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.925 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award
passed in M.C.O.P.No.1946 of 2001 dated 03.07.2006 on the file of the
I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirapalli.
2. The appellant/Insurance Company, which was made liable to pay
the compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest and costs to the
claimant/first respondent for the disability sustained in the accident
occurred on 14.06.2001, challenged the liability mulcted on it and also
the quantum of compensation awarded at by the Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company would submit that the Tribunal having reduced the disability
from 34% to 25% ought not to have granted Rs.75,000/- as compensation
for the alleged permanent disability of the claimant/first respondent, that
the claimant/first respondent has not produced any proof to show that he
has been disabled totally and for the rest of his life and in the absence of
such any evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of
Rs.75,000/- for the disability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.925 of 2022
4. It is the further contention of the appellant/Insurance Company
that the Tribunal ought to have granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- only for the
alleged partial permanent disability and the grant of Rs.75,000/- without
any materials or evidence is not tenable.
5. Admittedly, the appellant/Insurance Company has not challenged
the liability mulcted on it. But, on the other hand, the main challenge is
only with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
6. According to the claimant/first respondent, he was aged 28 years
at the time of the accident and he was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per
month as a film actor, that he sustained fracture on his back bone and
also lost his teeth and that he was treated initially at Government
hospital, Tiruchirapalli and therafter at Venkateswara hospital Palakkarai.
7. No doubt, the claimant/first respondent has examined the
medical officer, who examined him, as P.W.2 and he would say that the
fracture in T10 bone in the vertibra of the claimant/first respondent was
then united, but the mobility had been reduced and that he has assessed
the disability at 34%.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.925 of 2022
8. The claimant/first respondent has also produced the medical
records to show his fracture treatment at Government hospital as well as
in private hospital.
9. The Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries suffered and the
consequent disability sustained and period of treatment, has awarded
compensation of Rs.75,000/-.
10. Considering the medical evidence available and also the period
of treatment and nature of injuries sustained, pain and suffering and
medical expenses, compensation awarded at Rs.75,000/- cannot said to be
excessive and unreasonable.
11. The appellant/Insurance Company has not advanced any other
reason or ground to impugned the said award. Hence, this Court
concludes that the above appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable
to be dismissed. Considering the other facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court further concludes that the parties are to be directed to
bear their own costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.925 of 2022
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.10.2022
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.925 of 2022
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
C.M.A.(MD)No.925 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.9115 of 2022
17.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
