Madras High Court

Royal Sundaram General Insurance ... vs Uma on 6 July, 2023

                                                                              C.M.A.No.1332 of 2022



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     Dated: 06.07.2023

                                                 CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                                   C.M.A.No.1332 of 2022
                                               and C.M.P.No.9612 of 2022


                Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited
                Subramanian Building,
                2nd Floor, No.1, Club House Road,
                Chennai 600 002.                                                 ...Appellant


                                                            Vs.
                1.Uma
                2.Baseriya                                                       ...Respondents

                PRAYER : The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
                Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2022
                made in M.C.O.P.No.6713 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
                Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.


                                   For Appellant      : Ms.C.Harini
                                   For Respondents : Mrs.M.Malar for R1
                                                       No appearance for R2


                                                       JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company

challenging the award dated 03.03.2022 made in M.C.O.P.No.6713 of 2016 on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1332 of 2022

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes,

Chennai.

2. The appellant/Insurance Company is the second respondent in

M.C.O.P.No.6713 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The first respondent filed the said claim

petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries

sustained by her in the accident that took place on 06.08.2016.

3. According to the first respondent, on the date of accident i.e., on

06.08.2016 at about 16.00 hours, while she was walking on R.G.Salai from

East to West direction, Thuraipakkam, at that time, a car was driven by the

driver belonging to the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against her; that due to the said impact, the first respondent sustained

grievous injuries; that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the car belonging to the second respondent, insured

with the appellant and hence, entitled to compensation.

4. The second respondent, owner of the car remained exparte before the

Tribunal.

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

C.M.A.No.1332 of 2022

5. The appellant / Insurance Company filed a counter statement, denying

the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the amount of

compensation is excessive as the claimant has not produced any proof in

support of his claim.

6. It appears that in the accident, several persons were injured including

the first respondent herein and all the claim petitions of the injured were taken

up together and common order was passed by the Tribunal.

7. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent examined herself as P.W.2 and

marked 10 documents as Exs.P10 to P20. The appellant/Insurance Company

did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. The certificate issued by the

Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1.

8. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by

the driver of the car belonging to the second respondent and directed the

appellant/Insurance Company being insurer of the said car to pay a sum of

Rs.8,83,000/- as compensation to the first respondent.

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

C.M.A.No.1332 of 2022

9. Against the said award dated 03.03.2022 made in M.C.O.P.No.6713 of

2016, granting compensation to the 1st respondent, the appellant/Insurance

Company has come out with the present appeal challenging the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company submitted

that the Tribunal ought not to have considered the future prospects as the first

respondent has not adduced any evidence to show that she had suffered

permanent disability which prevented her from pursuing her avocation. In the

absence of evidence, the future prospects awarded by the Tribunal at 40% is

liable to be set aside. In any event, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

by adopting multiplier method is not correct. The Tribunal ought to have

adopted percentage method for granting compensation and prayed for setting

aside the award of the Tribunal.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that

the Tribunal has correctly adopted the multiplier method. He further submitted

that the Certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board which is marked as

Ex.C1 shows that the first respondent suffered from 20% permanent disability.

He further submitted that in view of the permanent disability suffered by the

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

C.M.A.No.1332 of 2022

first respondent, it has to be presumed that her future prospects were affected

and hence, the future prospects awarded by the Tribunal at 40 % need not be

interfered with. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

12. This Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads. There is no dispute

with regard to the liability as well. The only dispute in the instant appeal is with

regard to the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of disability.

The Tribunal referred the first respondent to the Medical Board. The Medical

Board after examining the first respondent, issued a disability certificate, which

is marked as Ex.C1 stating that the first respondent suffered 20% disability. The

Tribunal accepted the disability assessed by the Medical Board and the same is

not interfered with. The Tribunal had taken the notional income of the first

respondent at Rs.10,000/- per month as she was a student and she was taking

part time tuition. The amount fixed by the Tribunal with regard to the notional

income at Rs.10,000/- per month, is justified. The Tribunal has taken the future

prospects at 40%. This Court on perusal of the records find that there is no

evidence to show that the first respondent suffered permanent disability of such

a nature which would affect her ability to carry on her avocation. In such

circumstances, the addition of 40% under the head future prospects is not

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

C.M.A.No.1332 of 2022

justified and therefore, addition of 40% towards future prospects is liable to be

set aside and it is hereby set aside. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under

all other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby

confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as

follows:

                   S.No           Description      Amount           Amount      Award
                                                  awarded by      awarded by confirmed or
                                                   Tribunal        this Court enhanced or
                                                     (Rs)             (Rs)      granted
                   1.        Loss of income            6,04,800       4,32,000 Modified
                   2.        Medical expenses          1,60,248       1,60,248 Confirmed
                   3.        Future Medical             30,000          30,000 Confirmed
                             Expenses
                   4.        Pain and suffering         20,000          20,000 Confirmed
                   5.        Transportation             10,000          10,000 Confirmed
                   6.        Extra Nourishment          20,000          20,000 Confirmed
                   7.        Damage to clothes            1,000          1,000 Confirmed
                   8.        Attendant Charges            2,000          2,000 Confirmed
                   9.        Loss of amenities          20,000          20,000 Confirmed
                   10.       Mental agony               15,000          15,000 Confirmed
                             Total                     8,83,048       7,10,248 Reduced by
                                                                               Rs.1,72,800/-

13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.8,83,048/- is hereby reduced to

Rs.7,10,248/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1332 of 2022

of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed

to deposit the modified award amount along with interest and costs, less the

amount 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 first respondent is

permitted to withdraw the award amount along with proportionate interest and

costs, after adjusting the amount if any, already withdrawn. The

appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying

in the deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.6713 of 2016, if the entire award