Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Abhay Kant Sharma on 11 September, 2023
C.M.A.No.2917 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2917 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.22567 of 2022
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.6, Reliance House, 6th Floor,
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 6. ... Appellant/2nd respondent
Versus
1. Abhay Kant Sharma,
2. N.Mohamed Ibrahim Basha, ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and Judgment dated 30.03.2022 made
in M.C.O.P.No.2445 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (In the III Court of Small Causes) Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr. P.Suresh Srinivasan
For Respondents : Mr. G.Balaji Prasad for R1
No Appearance for R2
_____
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2917 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal challenging
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The first respondent filed a claim petition stating that on 15.01.2014
at about 11.45 hours, while he was crossing the Vandulur to Kelambakkam
road as a pedestrian, the rider of two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-20-BL-
6583 belonging to the second respondent herein came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against him, as a result of which, he sustained grievous
injuries.
3. The second respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal.
4. The appellant filed a counter, resisting the claim petition on the
ground that the compensation claimed by the first respondent is excessive;
that the accident did not take place due to the negligence of the rider of the
two wheeler and that hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2917 of 2022
5. The first respondent herein examined himself as P.W.1 and marked
ten documents as Exs.P1 to P10. The appellant did not examine any witness
or marked any document.
6. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence on record
awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,79,900/-
7. The learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal
had failed to assess the functional disability of the first respondent herein and
had erroneously accepted the disability certificate/Ex.P.9 issued by the
Medical Board attached to the Government Hospital at Dumka District, State
of Jharkhand. The learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent
had neither proved his avocation nor his income; that in the absence of any
proof to establish functional disability, the Tribunal erred in adopting
Multiplier method and prayed for reduction of compensation.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2917 of 2022
8. The learned counsel for the first respondent per contra, submitted
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. The second respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the appellant made an endorsement to dispense with
notice to the second respondent. Hence, notice to the second respondent is
dispensed with.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned
counsel for the first respondent.
11. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the fist respondent suffered
“Post Fracture deformity of bb LLL & # ULL elbow”. It is seen that the first
respondent had deposed before the Tribunal that he was working as a
Carpenter. He had also mentioned the said fact in his complaint before the
Police. The Tribunal after assessing the Disability Certificate and considering
the avocation of the first respondent held that he had suffered 60% functional
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2917 of 2022
disability based on Ex.P9/Disability Certificate. The Medical Board assessed
the disability as 60% permanent in relation to doing his work. The said
finding of the Tribunal cannot be faulted in the facts and circumstances of the
case. The Tribunal had fixed the monthly notional income as Rs.8,000/- for
an accident which took place in the year 2014. Considering the avocation of
the first respondent, this Court is of the view that the said finding also cannot
be faulted. The award under the other heads is also reasonable and no
interference is called for. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the award
of the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed.
12.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
confirming the award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.2445 of 2014.
At the time of admission, the appellant/Insurance Company had deposited
50% of the award amount with accrued interest and costs to the credit of
MCOP.No.2445 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(III Court of Small Causes), Chennai. Hence, the Appellant/Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the balance 50% of the award amount with
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2917 of 2022
accrued interest and costs fixed by the Tribunal within a period of six (6)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit
the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount,
along with interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.09.2023
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2917 of 2022
Copy to:-
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
No.I, Additional District and Sessions Court
Vellore.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court of Madras
Chennai.
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2917 of 2022
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
dk
C.M.A.No.2917 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.22567 of 2022
Dated: 11.09.2023
_____
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
