M/S.National Insurance Company ... vs Subbulakshmi
2024 Latest Caselaw 8195 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8195 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 June, 2024

Madras High Court

M/S.National Insurance Company ... vs Subbulakshmi on 3 June, 2024

Author: Abdul Quddhose

Bench: Abdul Quddhose

                                                                           C.M.A.No.3519 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 03.06.2024

                                                         CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                                                 C.M.A.No.3519 of 2021

                     M/s.National Insurance Company Limited,
                     74-A, Paramathi Road,
                     Namakkal Town – 637 001.                            .. Appellant


                                                              Vs


                     1.Subbulakshmi
                     2.Logeswaran                                         .. Respondents

                                  Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 24.10.2017
                     made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.766 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident
                     Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Namakkal.


                                       For Appellant          : Ms.N.B.Surekha

                                       For Respondents        : No appearance




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/8
                                                                                C.M.A.No.3519 of 2021

                                                         JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging

the award on the following grounds:-

(a) The Tribunal has failed to take note of the fact that the first

respondent/claimant had earlier sustained injuries caused by another

vehicle even prior to the injuries sustained by her caused by a vehicle

insured with the appellant insurance company. According to the

appellant, since the first respondent/claimant sustained injuries even

earlier, she cannot claim compensation from the appellant insurance

company, which has insured the Omni Car, as the accident was a

subsequent accident.

(b) The Tribunal has erroneously adopted multiplier method in

assessing the disability compensation, despite the fact that the first

respondent/claimant was hospitalized only for a period of 8 days and she

had incurred medical expenses only amounting to Rs.65,658/-.

(c) There is no evidence produced by the first respondent/claimant

to prove that due to the injuries, the first respondent/claimant had

suffered loss of earning capacity.

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

2. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, the appellant has not

examined the driver of the vehicle, which is alleged to have caused

injuries to the first respondent/claimant prior to the injuries caused by the

vehicle insured with the appellant insurance company. Since no

evidence was let-in and only based on preponderance of probability and

based on the fact that the FIR was registered only against the driver of

the vehicle insured with the appellant insurance company, the Tribunal

has rightly held the appellant insurance company liable to pay the

compensation to the first respondent/claimant. The Tribunal has given a

correct finding on that aspect and there is no scope for interference by

this Court with regard to the said ground raised by the appellant in this

appeal.

3. Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant insurance company in this appeal, since the first

respondent/claimant was hospitalized only for a period of 8 days as seen

from the discharge summary marked as Ex.P5 and since no evidence has

been produced by the first respondent/claimant to prove that the injuries

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

caused to her has resulted in loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal ought

not to have adopted the multiplier method in assessing the disability

compensation to the first respondent/claimant. The Tribunal ought to

have taken into consideration the fact that the first respondent/claimant

has incurred medical expenses only to the extent of Rs.65,658/-, which

will reveal that there is no loss of permanent earning capacity by the first

respondent/claimant. In view of the said fact, the Tribunal ought to have

assessed the disability compensation of the first respondent/claimant on

percentage basis, instead of adopting multiplier method. The Tribunal

has accepted the disability certificate issued by the doctor at 45% and has

erroneously adopted the multiplier method and no medical board has also

examined the first respondent/claimant.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view

that the Tribunal has erroneously adopted the multiplier method and

instead, it ought to have assessed the disability compensation based on

percentage basis. The accident happened in the year 2015. For an

accident having happened in the year 2015, it is settled practice to assess

the disability compensation of the accident victim at Rs.4,000/- per

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

percentage of disability. There is also no contra evidence produced by

the appellant insurance company to disprove the 45% disability assessed

by the doctor, who was examined as a witness before the Tribunal.

Therefore, this Court fixes the disability compensation payable to the

first respondent/claimant at Rs.1,80,000/- calculated at Rs.4,000/- per

percentage of disability for the 45% disability suffered by the first

respondent/claimant. Therefore, instead of Rs.3,15,900/- awarded by the

Tribunal to the first respondent/claimant towards loss of earning

capacity, this Court awards a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as disability

compensation.

5. Insofar as compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards

medical expenses at Rs.65,658/- is concerned, this Court is of the

considered view that since the said sum is supported by medical bills,

there is no scope for interference by this Court with regard to the same.

6. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, under the

heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, extra nourishment and

transport expenses, is low, considering the nature of injuries sustained by

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

the first respondent/claimant and considering the fact that the first

respondent was hospitalized for a period of 8 days. This Court,

therefore, enhances the compensation towards pain and suffering from

Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-; towards loss of amenities from Rs.10,000/- to

Rs.25,000/-; towards extra nourishment from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-;

and towards transport expenses from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is reduced from Rs.4,11,558/- to Rs.3,15,658/- as detailed

hereunder:-

                                        Disability compensation         - Rs.1,80,000/-
                                        Medical expenses                - Rs.65,658/-
                                        Pain and suffering              - Rs.25,000/-
                                        Loss of amenities               - Rs.25,000/-
                                        Extra nourishment               - Rs.10,000/-
                                        Transport expenses              - Rs.10,000/-

                                        Total                           - Rs.3,15,658/-

8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of and

the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The appellant

Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount as

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

awarded by this Court to the credit of MACT.O.P.No.766 of 2015 on the

file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge,

Namakkal, together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of

claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit

being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the said compensation

amount, along with accrued interest therein, to the bank account of the

first respondent/claimant through RTGS/NEFT transfer. No Costs.