Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs M.Menaka on 26 June, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.1211 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A.(MD).No.1211 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.12336 and 5241 of 2023
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
T.Nagar Branch,
Chennai
represented by its Manager. ... Appellant
-Vs-
1.M.Menaka
2.Charles
3.Ayubhkan
... Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.3 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, dated 27.07.2022.
For Appellant : M/s.K.R.Shivashankari
For R1 : Mr.M.R.Srinivasan
For R2 : No appearance
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1211 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai in M.C.O.P.No.3 of 2016,
dated 27.07.2022, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
2. Though the appeal has been filed on the ground of negligence, the main
argument is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The petitioner is a
fashion designer by profession. On 28.08.2014, at about 1.20 a.m., when the
petitioner was on her way to Chennai from Kaliyakkavilai in a bus bearing
Registration No.TN 28 AL 9010, the second respondent, the driver of the bus
drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and while
overtaking the lorry, which was proceeding in the same direction, hit the lorry
from the behind. As a result, a piece of wood, which was loaded in the lorry hit on
the face of the petitioner and she has lost her seven teeth and four teeth were
broken and there was a disfigurement on her face. Before the Tribunal, the third
respondent/Insurance Company has disputed the income and the nature of the
injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1211 of 2022
3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were
examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked and on the side of the respondents, no
oral and documentary evidence was marked.
4. The Tribunal, after finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was
negligent in driving the vehicle and considering the nature of the injuries,
awarded a sum of Rs.14,42,665/- in the following manner:
Description Amount
Compensation for injuries Rs.5,00,000/-
Pain and sufferings Rs.3,00,000/-
Nutrition expenses Rs.50,000/-
Attender expenses Rs.30,000/-
Transport charges Rs.20,000/-
Medical bills Rs.42,665/-
Mental agony Rs.5,00,000/-
Total Rs.14,42,665/-
Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the Insurance
Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1211 of 2022
5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company that the driver of the lorry was also negligent in
loading the wooden pieces beyond the body of the lorry. That apart, the Tribunal
has awarded the compensation for pain and suffering and mental agony without
any basis. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that
the method of compensation calculated by the Tribunal is not on the basis of any
legal evidence.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/the petitioner
would submit that the loss of seven teeth and disfigurement on the face leading to
serious consequences and the marriage prospects of the petitioner also delayed.
Therefore, the amount awarded towards pain and suffering and mental agony is
well balanced and it does not require any interference.
7. In the light of the above submissions, now the point for consideration in
this appeal is whether the Tribunal is right in awarding compensation for pain and
suffering and mental agony, without any evidence on that regard?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1211 of 2022
8. As far as the negligent aspect is concerned, it is clearly established on
record that the lorry was proceeding in front of the bus. In fact, the bus hit the
lorry behind the back. The very fact that the bus hit the lorry from the behind
without maintaining a reasonable distance itself clearly indicate that the driver of
the bus drove the vehicle in such a manner restlessly. Therefore, the contention of
the Insurance Company before this Court is that the wooden pieces protruding
outside the body of the lorry and hence, there was a negligence on the part of the
driver of the lorry cannot be countenanced. As far as the injury is concerned, it is
not disputed that the petitioner has lost her seven teeth fully and four teeth were
broken. In this regard, the Medical Officer / P.W.3, who treated the injured, has
also spoken that. His evidence very clearly that the permanent disability and she
has suffered disfigurement. Though the percentage of disability not specifically
spoken, considering the nature of the disability and the injuries sustained on the
teeth of the petitioner, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards
permanent disability.
9. This Court is of the view that considering the nature of the injury and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1211 of 2022
disfigurement caused on the face of the petitioner, the amount awarded by the
Tribunal towards compensation for injuries is very reasonable and it does not
require any interference. Though the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
for pain and suffering, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future
loss of income. The evidence on record clearly indicate that for one year the
petitioner was not in a position to do any work and she was a fashion designer
and working in Chennai.
10. In such a view of the matter, the Tribunal at least ought to have awarded
a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of income. That apart, the Tribunal also failed
to award any amount towards future medical expenses. Hence, this Court awarded
a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of income. Further, this Court awarded a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical bills and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards mental agony. Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is
modified as follows:
Description Amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1211 of 2022
Compensation for injuries Rs.5,00,000/-
Pain and sufferings Rs.3,00,000/-
Nutrition expenses Rs.50,000/-
Attender expenses Rs.30,000/-
Transport charges Rs.20,000/-
Medical bills Rs.42,665/-
Mental agony Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of income Rs.2,40,000/-
Future medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.13,82,665/-
11. Considering the fact that the petitioner is aged about 28 years and
bachelor at the relevant point of time and there was a total disfigurement and it
causes serious ailment and also considering the nature of surgery, this Court
added a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Hence, the award amount comes to Rs.16,32,665/-.
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with
interest at the rate of 7.5%, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw
the same. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1211 of 2022
closed.
26.06.2023
akv
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Subordinate Judge,
Kuzhithurai,
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1211 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
akv
C.M.A.(MD).No.1211 of 2022
26.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
