National Insurance Company Limited vs Rajan @ Raja
2024 Latest Caselaw 19272 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19272 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 October, 2024

Madras High Court

National Insurance Company Limited vs Rajan @ Raja on 4 October, 2024

                                                                        C.M.A.(MD) No.568 of 2019

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 04.10.2024

                                                        CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                           C.M.A.(MD) No.568 of 2019
                                                     and
                                           C.M.P.(MD)No.6879 of 2019


                    National Insurance Company Limited,
                    Represented by its Branch Manager,
                    Office code – 501 901,
                    Soukarpettai Branch,
                    Office No.378, Main Road, Sourkarpettai,
                    Chennai – 600 001.                       ... Appellant

                                                          Vs.

                    1.Rajan @ Raja,
                    2.B.Senthilkumar.                       ... Respondents


                    Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed Section 173 of the Motor
                    Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2018
                    passed in M.C.O.P.No.72 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents
                    Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Pudukottai.


                                   For Appellant       : Mr.A.S.Mathialagan

                                   For Respondents : Mr.K.Gokul for R1

                                                         *****

                    _____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                    Page No. 1 of 7
                                                                          C.M.A.(MD) No.568 of 2019

                                                   JUDGMENT

The instant appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of

compensation.

2. Since the finding on negligence is not under challenge, the facts

leading to the filing of the claim petition are unnecessary for the disposal

of the appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company

submitted that though the Medical Board attached to the Government

Hospital, Pudukkottai had assessed the disability as 3%, in the absence of

any evidence to show that there was a functional disability, the Tribunal

had adopted multiplier method, which is erroneous and that the

compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ and other heads is

excessive and prayed for reduction of the award amount.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant, per contra,

submitted that the first respondent was working as an Electrician in Saudi

Arabia and was earning substantial income;that because of the injuries, he

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

was unable to pursue his avocation; that he had lost his earning capacity;

and therefore, the Tribunal was right in awarding the compensation by

adopting multiplier method; and that the compensation under the other

heads is just and reasonable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Since the appeal is filed challenging the quantum of

compensation, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.

6. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is ‘whether

the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and

reasonable?’

7. Admittedly, the first respondent had suffered disability to the

extent of 3% as per the disability certificate/Ex.P8 issued by the Medical

Board. The first respondent had not established that he had suffered

functional disability on account of the injuries. It is well settled that unless

the claimant is able to establish his functional disability by proving that he

was unable to pursue his avocation, the multiplier method cannot be

adopted for computing the compensation under the head ‘disability’.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the computation by adopting

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

multiplier method by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The first

respondent/claimant is, however, entitled to compensation on a percentage

basis. The first respondent/claimant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- for a

percentage of disability. Hence, the compensation under the head

‘disability’ is reduced to Rs.15,000/-.

8. Though the first respondent/claimant had produced the evidence

to show that he was working in Saudi Arabia from March 2011 to March

2013, no documents have been produced for the employment at the time

of accident in the year 2015. Therefore, the notional income fixed by the

Tribunal at Rs.30,000/- assuming that he was employed in Saudi Arabia,

is erroneous. Considering the year of the accident, the avocation and age

of the first respondent, this Court is of the view that the notional income

can be fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the compensation under the head

‘loss of income’ is reduced to Rs.15,000/- * 3 = Rs.45,000/-. This Court is

of the view that the compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities’ can

be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The compensation under the other heads is

just and reasonable. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

modified as follows:

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

Sl. Description Amount Amount Award

No awarded by awarded by confirmed,

the Tribunal this Court enhanced or

granted 1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Confirmed 2 Loss of income Rs. 90,000/- Rs. 45,000/- Reduced 3 Permanent disability Rs.1,72,800/- Rs. 15,000/- Reduced 4 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Enhanced Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Confirmed Extra Nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Confirmed Transportation expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Confirmed Attendant charges Rs. 9,000/- Rs. 9,000/- Confirmed Total Rs.3,66,800/- Rs.1,89,000/- Reduced by

Rs.177,800/-

9. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

modified award amount of Rs.1,89,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine

Thousand only), together with interest at 7.5% p.a. per annum from the

date of the claim petition till the date of realization (excluding the period

of dismissal for default if any) and proportionate costs, less the amount

already deposited, if any, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant is permitted to get refund

the excess amount, if any, already deposited by filing suitable application

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

before the Tribunal.

10. On such deposit, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to

withdraw the award amount with interest and costs, less the amount