Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Kunjammal on 12 November, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
And
M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2014
The Branch Manager,
M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
66-C, North Ratha Street,
Tiruchengode – 637 211. ... Appellant in C.M.As.481,482,485/2014
The Branch Manager,
M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
55-C, North Ratha Street,
Tiruchengode – 637 211. ... Appellant in C.M.As.483,484/2014
Vs.
1.Kunjammal
2.Minor.Sanantha
Rep. by her Next friend / Grand mother/ Guardian
by name Kunjammal
3.S.Kandhasamy
4.S.Venkatachalam
5.S.R.Raju
6.The Branch Manager,
M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office – I,
Flat No.101–106, N–1, BMC House,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents in C.M.A.481/2014
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
1.Kunjammal
2.Minor.Sanantha
Rep. by her Next friend / Grand mother/ Guardian
by name Kunjammal
3.S.Venkatachalam
4.S.R.Raju
5.The Branch Manager,
M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office – I,
Flat No.101–106, N–1, BMC House,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents in C.M.A.482/2014
1.Minor.Sanantha
Rep. by her Next friend / Grand mother/ Guardian
by name Kunjammal
2.S.Venkatachalam
3.S.R.Raju
4.The Branch Manager,
M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office – I,
Flat No.101–106, N–1, BMC House,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents in C.M.A.483/2014
1.Palanisamy
2.S.Venkatachalam
3.S.R.Raju
4.The Branch Manager,
M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office – I,
Flat No.101–106, N–1, BMC House,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents in C.M.A.484/2014
1.Minor.Sanantha
Rep. by her Next friend / Grand mother/ Guardian
by name Kunjammal
2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
2.S.Venkatachalam
3.S.R.Raju
4.The Branch Manager,
M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office – I,
Flat No.101–106, N–1, BMC House,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents in C.M.A.485/2014
Common Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment passed in
M.C.O.P.Nos.191, 192, 193, 194 and 195 of 2008 respectively, dated
30.03.2012 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Subordinate – Judge) of Sankagiri at Erode – District, and be pleased
to dismiss the above claim.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Chandran
in all the C.M.As.
For Respondents : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel for R1 and R2
R3 – NRN
R4 and R5 – No Appearance
Mrs.N.B.Surekha for R6
in C.M.A.No.481 of 2014
Mr.C.Kulanthaivel for R1 and R2
R3 – Died Steps due
R4 – No Appearance
Mrs.N.B.Surekha for R5
in C.M.A.No.482 of 2014
Mr.C.Kulanthaivel for R1
R2 and R3 – No Appearance
Mrs.N.B.Surekha for R4
3/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
in C.M.A.Nos.483 to 485 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT
The second respondent Insurance Company before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, is the appellant herein. These appeals have
been filed against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.Nos.191, 192,
193, 194 and 195 of 2008 respectively, dated 30.03.2012 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate – Judge) of
Sankagiri at Erode – District.
2.The brief facts of the case is that on 03.08.2007 at about
9.45a.m., the deceased Thangaraj along with his family members and
his brother by name Palanisamy went to Molipalli to Annamar Temple
in the Maruthi Omni Van bearing Registration No.TN 34 E 8496. When
the said Van was near Vasantham Colony bus stop, the bus bearing
Registration No.TN 33 H 4488 which was coming from Sankari to
Bhavani in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Maruthi
Omni Van, due to which, some of the occupants of the Van died and
some of the occupants of the Van sustained injuries.
3.Thereafter, the dependants of the deceased and the injured/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
claimants filed claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.30 Lakhs, Rs.7,35,000/-, Rs.10
Lakhs, Rs.25 Lakhs and Rs.15 Lakhs respectively. After adjudication,
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, awarded the following
compensation to the claimants/ petitioners therein and aggrieved by
the same, the appellant Insurance Company has filed these appeals.
(i)In M.C.O.P.No.191 of 2008, the tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.8,50,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest at
the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit
and costs and directed the New India Assurance Company Limited to
deposit 50% of the compensation amount and the National Insurance
Company Limited to deposit 50% of the compensation amount.
(ii)In M.C.O.P.No.192 of 2008, the tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.3,75,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest at
the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit
and costs and directed the New India Assurance Company Limited to
deposit 50% of the compensation amount and the National Insurance
Company Limited to deposit 50% of the compensation amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
(iii)In M.C.O.P.No.193 of 2008, the tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.63,300/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and
costs and directed the New India Assurance Company Limited to
deposit 50% of the compensation amount and the National Insurance
Company Limited to deposit 50% of the compensation amount.
(iv)In M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2008, the tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.11,75,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest at
the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit
and costs and directed the New India Assurance Company Limited to
deposit 50% of the compensation amount and the National Insurance
Company Limited to deposit 50% of the compensation amount.
(v)In M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2008, the tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest at
the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit
and costs and directed the New India Assurance Company Limited to
deposit 50% of the compensation amount and the National Insurance
Company Limited to deposit 50% of the compensation amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the law enforcing agency registered case as against Thangaraj who
drove the vehicle owned by Raju and inorder to prove the same, the
Insurance Company examined officials of the Insurance Company and
Police official, however, the Trial Court ignored the deposition of the
witnesses examined by the Insurance Company and believed the
version of P.W.2 and fastened 50% liability on the appellant Insurance
Company and 50% liability on National Insurance Company Limited,
which is not sustainable one.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
submitted that in M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2008 the Doctor assessed the
disability of the claimant as 80% permanent disability, however, the
Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that claimant suffered 68% functional
disability and awarded compensation by adopting multiplier method,
which is not sustainable one and further submitted that the amount
awarded under the other heads are also on the higher side. However,
the learned counsel did not dispute the quantum of compensation
awarded in respect of other M.C.O.Ps.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the respective claimants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
submitted that inorder to prove the negligence aspect, two claimants
examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and they are the eye
witness to the accident and they deposed how the accident happened
and the appellant Insurance Company did not examine any
independent eye witness and further submitted that F.I.R. was
registered as against the driver of the vehicle insured with the
appellant Insurance Company. Hence, the impugned judgment passed
by the Tribunal warrants no interference. The learned counsel further
submitted that the Tribunal after considering all the factual aspects,
awarded the compensation which is just and reasonable.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Insurance Company as well as the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants and perused the materials available on record.
8.The issue that arise for consideration in these appeals is
whether the 50% liability fastened on the appellant Insurance
Company and 50% liability fastened on the National Insurance
Company Limited, is sustainable or not and whether the quantum of
compensation arrived at by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2008
(C.M.A.No.484 of 2014) is sustainable or not.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
9.Perusal of records reveal that on 03.08.2007 at about
9.45a.m., the deceased Thangaraj along with his family members and
his brother by name Palanisamy went to Molipalli to Annamar Temple
in the Maruthi Omni Van bearing Registration No.TN 34 E 8496. When
the said Van was near Vasantham Colony bus stop, the bus bearing
Registration No.TN 33 H 4488 which was coming from Sankari to
Bhavani in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Maruthi
Omni Van, due to which, some of the occupants of the Van died and
some of the occupants of the Van sustained injuries.
10.Inorder to prove the negligence aspect, two claimants
examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and they are the eye
witness to the accident and they deposed how the accident happened
and based on their deposition, the Tribunal fastened 50% liability on
the appellant Insurance Company and 50% liability on National
Insurance Company Limited. The appellant Insurance Company did
not examine any independent eye witness. Without examining any
eye witness, the appellant Insurance Company questioning the
negligence aspect is not sustainable one.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
11.Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, the
appellant has disputed only the compensation awarded to the claimant
in M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2008 (C.M.A.No.484 of 2014). Hence, there is
no need for any discussion in respect of the quantum of compensation
awarded in respect of M.C.O.P.Nos.191, 192, 193 and 195 of 2008
respectively.
12.In M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2008, the tribunal after elaborately
discussing the factual aspects awarded a sum of Rs.8,56,800/- for
disability, Rs.25,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.2,52,500/- for
medical bills, Rs.20,000/- for extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for
attender charges, Rs.10,000/- for transport expenses, Rs.5,000/- for
loss of comfort during the treatment period and arrived at a total
compensation of Rs.11,79,300/- and observed that the claimant is
entitled to a sum of Rs.11,75,000/- as compensation with interest at
the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
13.The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2008 sustained only
fracture injuries. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have followed the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 [Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.], however, without following the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
guidelines issued in the said decision, the Tribunal mechanically passed
the award by applying multiplier method, which is not sustainable one.
14.The Tribunal has taken into consideration the disability of the
injured claimant in M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2008 as 68%. At the relevant
point of time Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability was awarded.
Hence, amount awarded for disability works out to Rs.2,04,000/- [68%
X Rs.3,000/- = Rs.2,04,000/-].
15.The amount awarded under the heads extra nourishment,
pain and sufferings, in the opinion of this Court are low and this Court
is inclined to enhance the amount awarded under the said heads.
Accordingly, the amount awarded for extra nourishment is enhanced to
Rs.25,000/- from Rs.20,000/-, the amount awarded for pain and
sufferings is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- from Rs.25,000/-. The amount
awarded under the heads medical bills, attender charges and transport
expenses, in the opinion of this Court are just and reasonable and the
same are confirmed. The amount awarded under the head loss of
comfort during the treatment period, in the opinion of this Court is not
necessary and the same is deleted. This Court is of the opinion that
some amount has to be awarded for future medical expenses and for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
loss of income during the treatment period. Accordingly, this Court
awards a sum of Rs.40,000/- for future medical expenses and a sum of
Rs.20,000/- for loss of income during the treatment period.
16.Accordingly, the compensation amount awarded to the
injured claimant in M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2008 is re-assessed as follows:
S.No. Description Amount Awarded Amount Awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
1. Disability Rs.8,56,800/- Rs.2,04,000/-
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 30,000/-
3. Medical bills Rs.2,52,500/- Rs.2,52,500/-
4. Extra nourishment Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
5. Attender charges Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
6. Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
7. Loss of income comfort during Rs. 5,000/- ---
treatment period
8. Loss of income during treatment --- Rs. 20,000/-
period
9. Future medical expenses --- Rs. 40,000/-
Total Rs.11,79,300/- Rs.5,91,500/-
17.The first respondent in C.M.A.No.484 of 2014/ claimant in
M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2008 is entitled to total compensation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
Rs.5,91,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the
date of petition till the date of deposit.
18.The civil miscellaneous appeal in C.M.A.No.484 of 2014 is
partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 30.03.2012 in
M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Subordinate – Judge) of Sankagiri at Erode – District, is
modified to the above extent. The appellant Insurance Company is
directed to deposit 50% of the modified award amount before the
Tribunal less the amount already deposited if any, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the
fourth respondent National Insurance Company is directed to deposit
50% of the modified award amount before the Tribunal less the
amount already deposited if any, within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellant Insurance
Company and the National Insurance Company are permitted to
withdraw the excess amount, if any, already deposited by them.
19.On such deposit, the first respondent in C.M.A.No.484 of
2014/ claimant in M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2008 is permitted to withdraw
the modified award amount with accrued interest and proportionate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
costs, after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on
making proper and necessary application before the Tribunal.
20.The civil miscellaneous appeal in C.M.A.No.484 of 2014 is
partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
21.The civil miscellaneous appeals in C.M.A.Nos.481, 482, 483
and 485 of 2014 are dismissed. The judgment and decree in
M.C.O.P.Nos.191, 192, 193 and 195 of 2008 respectively, dated
30.03.2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Subordinate – Judge) of Sankagiri at Erode – District, is confirmed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
12.11.2024
pri
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
(Subordinate – Judge) of Sankagiri at Erode – District.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
And
M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.481 to 485 of 2014
12.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
