Madras High Court
Branch Manager vs Jeevarathinam … Petitioner/1St on 24 October, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
C.M.A.No.1473 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.No.1473 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.15092 of 2023
Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
45 Feet Road, Balaji Nagar,
New Saram, Puducherry. … Appellant/2nd Respondent
vs.
1.Jeevarathinam … Petitioner/1st Respondent
2.Selvaraj ...1st Respondent/2nd Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 15.09.2021
made in M.C.O.P.No.834 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For 1st Respondent : Mr.Prakash Adiyapatham
for Mr.V.Iyyappan
nd
For 2 Respondent : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by Mrs.R.Kalaimathi, J.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Insurance company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal against the Award dated 15.09.2021 made in M.C.O.P.894 of 2019
on the file of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry in
respect of quantum.
2. Heard Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant / 2nd Respondent-Insurance Company and Mr.Prakash
Adiyapatham, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
3. The manner in which the accident had occurred is not in dispute.
4. The main grievance of the appellant is that fixing of 51% as
functional disability is not correct and it is on the higher side.
5. Upon consideration of the entire medical records namely Exs.P6
to P11, the disability certificate Ex.C1 coupled with oral evidence of
Dr.Santha Murthy the Tribunal has fixed the disability at 51%, but, the
Medical Board as per Ex.C1 has fixed the disability of the claimant at 75%.
6. As regards the injuries sustained by the claimant, on account of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the accident, he suffered fracture over the left thigh and both bone injury in
the left fore-arm. He had Neuro problem and he was not in a position to
walk. It is relevant to extract the evidence of PW2 / Dr.Santha Murthy :
“…mtUf;F tyJ bjhilapy; vYk;g[ Kwpe;J
ToapUe;jJ/ ,lJ KH';ifapy; vYk;g[ Kwpe;J
ToapUe;jJ/ nkw;fz;l ,uz;L ,l';fspYk; cs;
cgfuz';fs; bghUj;jg;gl;L mWit rpfpr;ir
bra;ag;gl;oUe;jJ/ mtUf;F euk;g[ ghjpf;fg;gl;L 2
ghj';fSk; KGikahf ntiy bra;atpy;iy me;j
fhy;fSf;F Jiz nrh;f;Fk; tpjkhf btspg;g[wj;jpy;
cnyhfj;jhy; Md cgfuzk; bghUj;jg;gl;oUe;jJ/“
7. It is pertinent to note that the Doctor (PW2) has deposed that
though the Medical Board has fixed the disability at 75%, it was
mistakenly calculated and his disability would be only 51%. The claimant
was aged about 22 years at the relevant point of time. He has suffered
fracture over leg and left hand and he is not in a position to walk due to
Neuro problem. Therefore, the disability was taken as 51% by the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and multiplier method was invoked for granting of compensation.
8. Considering the nature of injuries and fractures suffered by the
claimant and effects of the same, as he is not in a position to walk due to
Neuro problem, fixing of disability at 51% cannot be found fault with.
9. The Tribunal has fixed his income at Rs.10,000/- per month and
by adding 40% future prospects, salary was fixed at Rs.14,000/- and by
adding multiplier 18, loss of income was arrived at Rs.15,43,000/-. For
Medical Expenses and for Transport Charges an amount of Rs.20,000/-
each has been granted. For Pain and Sufferings an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded. For loss of marital status and for life
expectancy Rs.4,00,000/- under each heads have been granted. For Extra
Nourishment an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted. For Attender
Charges, Rs.70,000/- is granted. Totally Rs.30,53,000/- is awarded by the
Tribunal. We are of the considered view that upon consideration of the
fractures suffered by the claimant and the effects of the same, the
compensation awarded under various heads are not excessive and we are
reminded of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
R.D.Hattangadi Vs. M/s.Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1995 SC 755, wherein, it has been observed that:
"In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is
required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of
accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical
consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the
nature of disability caused. But all the aforesaid
elements have to be viewed with objective standards."
10. Based on the aforestated discussions, we are not inclined to
interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal and hence, this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. Resultantly, the award and
decree dated 15.09.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.834 of 2019 on the file of
the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry stands
confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also closed.
(J.N.B., J.,) (R.K.M., J.,)
24.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No
ssn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Puducherry.
J.NISHA BANU, J.,
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.KALAIMATHI, J.,
ssn
and
24.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
