The Manager vs V.Thangamani
2023 Latest Caselaw 14411 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 14411 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 November, 2023

Madras High Court

The Manager vs V.Thangamani on 21 November, 2023

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                    1

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                            DATED: 21.11.2023

                                                                CORAM:

                                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                    C.M.A.No.2566 of 2019

                     The Manager,
                     Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                     No.45 & 46 Whites Road,
                     Chennai-14.                                                      .. Appellant
                                                       Vs.
                     1. V.Thangamani
                     2. H.Hanumathappa
                     3. The Managing Director,
                     Tamil Nadu State Transport
                     Corporation Limited, Salem.                                      .. Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2018 made
                     in MACT. OP.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Judge,
                     Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hosur.

                                  For Appellant     :          Mr.G.Vasudevan

                                  For Respondents       :      Mr.D.Nitin R3
                                                               R2 – No ready notice
                                                               R1 – No appearance

                                                             JUDGMENT

This appellant has come forward with this appeal seeking quantum of

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

compensation in the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2018 made in MACT.

OP.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hosur.

2.Brief fact which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as

follows:-

On 24.11.2010, when the claimant was travelling from Hosur to

Salem in TNSTC bus bearing Reg. No.TN 30 N 0761, at that time, a lorry

bearing Reg. No.KA 16 A 8153, driven by its driver, on the same direction

and without horning and indication, suddenly stopped the lorry before the

bus, due to which, the bus hit the lorry. Thereby, the claimant and other

passengers have sustained injuries and admitted in a hospital. The claimant

has filed a claim Petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15/-

lakhs.

3. Before the Tribunal, during trial, in order to prove the case, on the

side of the appellant, two witnesses were examined viz., PW1 to PW2 and

marked 14 documents viz., Exs.P1 to P14, On the side of the

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

respondent/Insurance company, one witness was examined and 5 documents

were marked. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.8,72,643/- and out of which,

the appellant is liable to pay 70% and the Transport Corporation is liable to

pay 30%. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/insurance company, has

filed this appeal before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly the

insured vehicle damaged on the reat side and the third respondent bus was

damaged in fron side. The motor vehicle report shows tat the negligence is

on the part of the driver of the transport corporation bus. However,

fastening the liability as against the appellant insurance company is not

sustainable. Further the Doctor who was not treated the claimant, has

assessed the disability at 70% and it is only a partial permanent disability.

Without considering the same, the Tribunal awarded huge compensation to

the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- towards loss of earning,

which is on the higher side. Other heads awarded by the Tribunal is also

very excessive, which warrants interference of this Court.

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

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the third respondent Transport

Corporation submitted that admittedly, an FIR has been registered as against

the driver of the insured vehicle. To disprove the said fact, the appellant has

not examined any oral evidence before the Tribunal. The first

respondent/claimant stated that the entire negligence is on the appellant

insured vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal has fastened the liability as against

the appellant insurance company, which cannot be interfered with.

6. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

materials available on record.

7. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, an FIR has

been registered against the driver of the lorry. Further the first respondent

has examined as PW1 and narrated the manner of the accident before the

Tribunal. In order to prove the fact, the insurance company has not

examined any eyewitness. They examined only officials of the insurance

company. The officials of the insurance company is not competent to talk

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

about the accident on the particular day. Hence, the Tribunal elaborately

assessed the issue, fastened the liability as against the insurance company,

this court cannot interfere with the said award.

8. In respect of quantum of compensation, this Court perused the

award. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the Tribunal has fixed the

disability at 70% and awarded a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- towards loss of

earning power, which warrants interference. The disability fixed by the

Doctor would vary from doctor to doctor. In view of the same, this Court is

inclined to fix the disability at 65% as partial permanent disability. The

accident had happened in the year 2010, a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage

is fixed to compute towards disability. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the nature of

injuries sustained by the appellant, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded. The

Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards discomfort, frustration

and loss of social enjoyment and the same is rejected by this Court and this

court is inclined to fix a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards partial loss of income.

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:

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

Sl.No Amount awarded Amount awarded . Description by Tribunal(Rs.) by this Court(Rs.) 1 Loss of earning 4,20,000 1,95,000 (65%x3000) 2 Medical expenses 2,27,843 2,27,843 3 Future medical exp. 25,000 25,000 4 Transportation 10,000 10,000 5 Nutrition 10,000 10,000 6 Attender charges 10,000 10,000 7 Pain and sufferings 1,00,000 50,000 8 Discomfort, frustration 50,000 .....

and loss of social enjoyment

9. Partial loss of income 19,800 20,000 Total 8,72,643 5,47,843/-

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

compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.6,24,000/- is hereby modified

to Rs.5,47,843/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realization. Out of the award amount, the appellant

Insurance Company is directed to deposit 70% of the award amount with

interest and the Transport corporation is directed to deposit 30% of the

award amount with interest, before the Tribunal, less the amount if already

deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to deposit

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