Madras High Court
M/S.National Insurance Company ... vs T.Aravind on 13 June, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.104 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.104 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.1588 of 2018
M/s.National Insurance Company Limited,
Bharathidasan Salai,
Contonment, Trichirappalli. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.T.Aravind ... Respondent/Petitioner
2.C.Pandian ... Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree of the Claims
Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.3025 of 2013, dated 08.09.2015 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court,
Trichirappalli.
For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali
For R1 : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
For R2 : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A(MD)No.104 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company
challenging the negligence and quantum in the award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichirapalli in M.C.O.P.No.3025 of
2013.
2. According to the claimant, while he was riding a two wheeler on
03.12.2002, at about 08.45 a.m, a van owned by the 1st respondent and
insured with the 2nd respondent came from behind and dashed against the
rear side of the two wheeler. In the said accident, the claimant is said to
have been thrown off and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was a
first year college student and he had prayed for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-
towards compensation.
3. The owner of the van had filed a counter contending that the
claimant alone was responsible for the said accident and he had dashed
against the rear side of the van. The insurance company has also filed a
counter supporting the case of the insured.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.104 of 2018
4. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, had arrived at a finding that the accident has taken place only
due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the van.
Thereafter, based upon the disability certificate Exhibit P.9, proceeded to
apply multiplier method and has awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,200/- towards
future loss of income. The tribunal has further awarded a sum of
Rs.85,990/- towards medical bills, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards
transportation charges, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment,
a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards attender charges and a sum of Rs.50,000/-
towards pain and suffering. In total, a sum of Rs.5,01,190/- has been
awarded. The said award is under challenge in the present appeal.
5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/insurance company, only the claimant was driving his two
wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and he had dashed against the
rear side of the van. Therefore, the entire negligence is on the part of the
claimant and the insurance company is not liable to pay any
compensation whatsoever. He further contended that except the
interested witness of P.W.1, no other person has been examined in order
to prove the manner of accident. He had further contended that as per the
disability certificate, the claimant is said to have sustained disability of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.104 of 2018
54%. The tribunal has arrived at a specific finding that there is no
functional disability for the claimant. However, the tribunal has
proceeded to apply the multiplier method and has awarded a sum of
Rs.3,40,200/- towards future loss of income. Therefore, according to the
appellant, the multiplier method ought not to have been applied and the
quantum of compensation awarded under the said head has to be set
aside. He further contended that there was negligence on the part of the
claimant also and therefore, some percentage of negligence should be
fixed upon the claimant.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/claimant pointed out that the claimant has sustained grievous
injuries in his vertebral coloumn and he was bed ridden and therefore,
the multiplier method adopted by the tribunal is correct. He further
contended that they have proved the manner of accident by examining
the claimant and the grievousness of the injuries have been brought out
through P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also through various medical records filed
on the side of the claimant. Hence, he prayed for confirming the order
passed by the tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.104 of 2018
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.
8. It is the specific case of the claimant that the van came from
behind and dashed against the rear side of the two wheeler. However, the
owner of the van and the insurance company have contended that the two
wheeler alone dashed against the rear side of the van. Both the parties
have not filed the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report in order to prove the
damage to the respective vehicles. The owner of the offending vehicle
has been examined as R.W.3. During his cross-examination, he has
stated that he is not aware how the accident has taken place. While cross
examining the claimant, a suggestion has been put to him to the effect
that the tyre of the two wheeler had dashed against the front portion of
the van. Therefore, it is clear that only the front portion of the van had
dashed against the rear side of the vehicle. In view of the deliberations,
this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the
tribunal with regard to the negligence.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, the discharge summary as well as the findings of the tribunal
will clearly indicate that the claimant has not sustained any functional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.104 of 2018
disability. In fact, the discharge summary marked as Exhibit P.3 clearly
indicates that the health of the claimant has been restored to normal.
Therefore, the tribunal was not right in adopting the multiplier method.
This Court is inclined to award Rs.3,000/- per percentage. Therefore,
under the head of partial permanent disability, a sum of Rs.1,62,000/-
could be awarded treating the disability at 54%. The award of the
tribunal under the other heads stand confirmed.
10. In view of the above said deliberations, the award of the
tribunal is modified from Rs.5,01,190/ to Rs.3,22,990/-. In other
respects, the award of the tribunal stands confirmed. The Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent as stated above. The
excess amount that is deposited by the insurance company shall be
refunded along with accrued interest. No costs. Consequently, connected
Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
13.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.104 of 2018
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Court,
Trichirappalli.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.104 of 2018
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.104 of 2018
13.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
