Madras High Court
Sathyaraj vs Natarajan on 26 June, 2023
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1819 of 2022
Sathyaraj
S/o Viswanathan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Natarajan
S/o Anbazhagan
2.The Branch Manager
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Kumbakonam Branch 731 101.
No.83, T.S.R. Big Street
Kumbakonam Town, Kumbakonam Tk
Tanjavur Dt.,
Pin 612 001. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 19.03.2020 made in
M.C.O.P. No.137 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal (CJM), Ariyalur.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh
for Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/8
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ariyalur, dated 19.03.2020 in
M.C.O.P.No.137 of 2017, in and by which, the Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.8,23,265/-, with further interest at 7.5% p.a., towards the
claim made by the appellant/claimant, for the injuries sustained by him in
the road accident.
2.The appellant/claimant made a total claim of Rs.40 lakhs stating
that he was aged 27 years as of the year 2015 and was working as Driver
in a Lorry and he was having a Heavy Vehicle Driving Licence and also
earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. While so, on 17.12.2015 when
the appellant/claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle,
bearing Registration No.TN 61 E 8408, at about 1.30 pm., the insured
two wheeler having ridden in a rash and negligent manner from the
opposite direction, hit against the vehicle of the appellant/claimant and
due to which he sustained grievous injuries, resulting to the amputation of
the right foot of the appellant/claimant and hence he preferred the claim
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/8
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2022
3.Before the Tribunal, the claim petition was resisted by the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company.
4.During the course of trial, the claimant examined himself as
P.W.1 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to 42. During the trial, the claimant
was referred to Medical Board and his disability was assessed as 65% by
the Medical Board, which is marked as Ex.C.1. Even though the
permanent disability of the claimant was assessed by the Medical Board
as 65%, the Tribunal without adopting the multiplier method, adopted the
percentage method and granted disability compensation of Rs.3,25,000/-
and after awarding another sum of Rs.3,52,735/- for medical expenses, a
total sum of Rs.1,45,500/- was awarded by the Tribunal, under the head
'Transportation charges'.
5.Aggrieved by the quantum, the appellant/claimant is before this
Court.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant by
filing a calculation sheet would submit that the claimant was aged only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/8
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2022
26 years at the time of accident and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- as
Driver. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded multiplier method
and would have granted the compensation of Rs.39,82,835/-, which
would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case.
7.Resisting the said submissions, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that
firstly, though the multiplier method could have been adopted, still in this
case, the appellant/claimant had not proved his income by examining any
employer. Therefore, only notional income of the appellant/claimant can
be taken and with regard to the 65 % of the disability as assessed by the
Medical Board, as he is able to function in some other work, even in the
multiplier method, disability of the appellant/claimant can be assessed as
65 %.
8.We have considered the rival submissions made on either side.
9.Firstly, the subject is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the Judgment of Sarala Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/8
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2022
Corporation and another 1, has categorically held that in cases of these
nature, where the injured claimant suffers from permanent disability, only
the multiplier method can be adopted and not the percentage method.
Therefore, the award of the Tribunal needs interference.
10.Now, coming to the multiplier method, it is seen that the
appellant/claimant marked his Driving Licence – Ex.P.39, which shows
that he is having the licence to drive the heavy vehicles, thus, it can be
concluded that the appellant/claimant was a Driver. No contra evidence
has also been let in on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
11.In that view of the matter, when it is proved that the
appellant/claimant is the holder of the Heavy Vehicle Driving Licence and
when the nature of injury is amputation of one foot, it comes without
saying that even though the over all permanent disability is only 65 %,
taking into consideration of the fact that the the appellant no longer be
able to drive the vehicle, functional disability can be fixed as 100%.
Therefore, we take the permanent disability at 100%. Though, no proof
of income has been furnished, we extend the provision laid down in the
1 (2009) 6 SCC 121
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/8
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2022
case of National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others., 2
and that the notional income can be taken for the relevant period a sum of
Rs.15,000/-, as he is employed as per paragraph No.56.4 of the Pranay
Sethi's case. Further, an addition of 40% can be granted as future
prospectus and which comes to Rs.15,000/- + (15000 x 40 %) x 100 % x
17 x 12 = Rs.42,84,000/-
12.We are also inclined to allow the following other expenses:
Medical allowances : Rs.3,52,735/-
Attendant charges : Rs.15,000/-
Pain and suffering : Rs.1,00,000/-
Total : Rs.47,51,735/-
13.Since the claim is made for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- before the
Tribunal as well as before this Court, we restrict the total compensation to
Rs.40,00,000/-.
14.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed with the
2 2017 (16) SCC 680
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6/8
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2022
following directions:-
(i) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced award amount now determined by this Court, along with
interest at 7.5% p.a., and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment.
(ii) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw entire
award amount, along with interest and costs, less the amount already
withdrawn, if any, by making necessary applications before the Tribunal.
(iii) No costs.
(J.N.B,J.) (D.B.C,
J.)
Index : Yes / No 26.06.2023
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral citation : Yes / No
Jer
To
The Section Officer
V.R.Section
High Court of Madras.
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7/8
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2022
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
Jer
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2022
26.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8/8
