Madras High Court

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Latha on 24 October, 2024

                                                                         C.M.A.(MD)No.784 of 2024

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 24.10.2024

                                                    CORAM :

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                          C.M.A(MD)No.784 of 2024
                                                    and
                                          C.M.P.(MD)No.8612 of 2024


                     United India Insurance Company Limited,
                     Represented by Divisional Manager,
                     Divisional Office,
                     PPK Building 1st Floor, Main Road,
                     Marthandam Post,
                     Vilavancode Taluk,
                     Kanyakumari District.              ...Appellant/Respondent No.4


                                                    Vs.


                     1.Latha                        ... Respondent No.1/Petitioner
                     2.Saju                         ... Respondent No.2/Respondent No.1
                     3.Aruldhas                     ... Respondent No.3/Respondent No.2
                     4.Ramesh                       ... Respondent No.4/Respondent No.3


                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order and decree dated 10.11.2022 in
                     M.C.O.P.No.142 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
                     Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     Page No.1 of 10
                                                                                 C.M.A.(MD)No.784 of 2024

                                        For Appellant       : Mr.I.Suthakaran
                                        For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan (R1)
                                                             No appearance (R2 & R3)


                                                         JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging

the finding on liability and quantum of compensation.

2. The first respondent filed a claim petition stating that while she

was taking water from a tap in the street, a tempo insured with the

appellant came in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, she

sustained grievous injuries. The driver and the owner of the vehicle

remained exparte before the Tribunal.

3. The appellant insurance company filed a counter stating that the

accident did not take place due to the negligence of the tempo driver and

that the insured vehicle was not driven in a rash and negligent manner

and that the driver of the insured vehicle did not have any valid licence

and that they are not liable to pay compensation and in any case, the

compensation claimed was excessive.

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

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and

marked Exs.P1 to P18. The appellant examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and

marked Exs.R1 to R6.

5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and

documentary evidence, held that the accident took place due to the rash

and negligent driving of the insured vehicle and directed the appellant

insurance company to pay compensation at Rs. 4,70,865/-.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance

company would submit that the appellant had established before the

tribunal that the driver of the insured vehicle did not have any valid

licence and the tribunal had not considered the said evidence and

directed the appellant to pay the compensation; that the compensation

towards disability by adopting the multiplier method is erroneous, as the

first respondent/claimant has not established any functional disability

and; that the compensation under other heads is excessive, and hence, he

prayed for setting aside the award.

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

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first

respondent/claimant submitted that the compensation awarded by the

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

Though notice was sent to the owner of the vehicle, who is the third

respondent herein, and his name is printed in the cause list, none has

appeared on behalf of the third respondent.

8. The points for consideration in the instant appeal are as follows:

‘a. Whether the finding on liability is justified?

b. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal

is just and reasonable?’

9. As far as the first point is concerned, it is seen that the appellant

insurance company had examined RW1, Typist of the Regional Transport

Office at Marthandam, who had deposed that their office had not issued

any licence to the driver of the insured vehicle. The appellant insurance

company had also marked the letter, Ex.R1, and the copies of the notices,

Exs. R3 to R5, calling upon the owner, driver, and policyholder of the

vehicle to produce the driving licence and they had not responded to the

said notices. This Court is therefore of the view that the appellant

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

insurance company had established before the Tribunal that the driver of

the insured vehicle did not have any valid licence and hence, the Tribunal

ought to have directed the appellant to pay the award amount and recover

the same from the owner of the vehicle, the third respondent herein.

Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

10. As regards the quantum of compensation is concerned,

admittedly the disability suffered by the first respondent /claimant is

10%, as per Ex.P12 issued by PW3, Doctor, who had treated the

appellant, and the injuries suffered by the first respondent /claimant are

listed out in Ex.P4 issued by the certificate, which shows that the first

respondent /claimant had suffered open grade III comminuted fracture

both boes M/3 (R) with contused circumferential soft tissue, abrasion (L)

knee, and abrasion hypochondriac region.

11. The first respondent /claimant has not established that she

suffered any functional disability due to the injuries suffered by her. In

such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal towards disability by adopting multiplier is

unwarranted. The accident took place in the year 2015, and hence, the

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

first respondent /claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for a

percentage of disability and hence, this Court is of the view that a sum of

Rs. 50,000/- can be granted under the head of disability instead of

Rs. 1,15,200/- granted by the Tribunal under the head compensation for

injuries.

12. The award under the head of pain and sufferings at

Rs. 1,50,000/- is modified as towards loss of pain and sufferings and loss

of amenities for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- under each head. The transport

expense is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-, as there is no evidence to show that

the first respondent/claimant had spent Rs. 25,900/- awarded by the

Tribunal by filing any documentary evidence. The claimant had

established that she was working as a housemaid and could not pursue

the work for a period of three months. Hence, by fixing a notional

income at Rs. 7,000/- per month, a sum of Rs. 21,000/- can be awarded

under the head of loss of income for three months. The compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is confirmed. Thus, 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 the awarded by this confirmed, Tribunal Court enhanced or (Rs.) (Rs.) granted 1 Compensation for 1,15,200 --- Rejected injuries (Disability) 2 Disability --- 50,000 Granted 3 Pain and Sufferings 1,50,000 75,000 Reduced 4 Loss of amenities --- 75,000 Granted 5 Medical Bills 1,39,765 1,39,765 Confirmed 6 Nutrition expenses 20,000 20,000 Confirmed 7 Attender Expenses 20,000 20,000 Confirmed 8 Transport Charges 25,900 10,000 Reduced 9 Loss of income --- 21,000 Granted Total Rs.4,70,865 Rs.4,10,765 Reduced by Rs.60,100/-

13. The appellant insurance company is directed to pay the

compensation of Rs. 4,10,765/- (Rupees four lakhs ten thousand seven

sixty-five only) together with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of the

claim petition till the date of realization and 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, at the first instance and thereafter,

recover it from the third respondent herein in accordance with law.

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

withdraw the award amount, with proportionate interest and costs, less https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing an appropriate

application before the Tribunal.

15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.




                                                                                 24.10.2024
                     Index                     : Yes / No
                     Neutral Citation          : Yes / No
                     Sm




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





                     TO:-

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Judgment made in

Dated: