Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Vijayalingam on 28 October, 2024
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
C.M.A(MD)No.85 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated :28.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A(MD)No.85 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.1473 of 2024
The Branch Manager
M/s.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Branch Office,
No.3607/21, 2nd Floor,
Sathiyamoorthy Road,
Pudukottai. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Vijayalingam
2.M/s.Rajalingam Transports,
No.3A/4, Maris Avenue,
Collector Office Road,
Trichy District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the order of the Tribunal of
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special Sub Judge,
Tiruchirappalli made in M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2021 dated 06.04.2023.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
For Respondents : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.85 of 2024
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J.]
The Insurance company filed this appeal challenging the quantum
of the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2021, dated 18.12.2022, by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge/ Special Sub Judge, Trichirappalli.
2.Facts of the case:
The first respondent is injured claimant. On 01.11.2022 at 05.40
a.m., when he was attending nature's call, near toll plaza Boodhakudi in
Trichy to Madurai Main Road, the appellant insured lorry bearing
registration No.TN-45-BH-6928 belonging to the second respondent was
driven by the second respondent's driver in a rash and negligent manner
and hit the injured claimant and ran over his both legs. In result, the first
respondent sustained multiple grievous injuries in his both legs and
hence, in both legs above the knee have been amputated. He was
undergoing treatment in GVN hospital Trichy as inpatient from
01.11.2022 to 30.12.2022. He is now undergoing treatment as outpatient.
He has incurred huge medical expenditure of Rs.20,00,000/-. He was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
working as a Assistant Manager in the Dindigul Thalappakatti Restarant
Private Limited Brach at Chennai. Due to the disability in both legs, he
could not walk, stand, run, squat, sit cross legged, carry any weight or do
his routine work as he was doing before the accident. Due to the said
accident, he is unable to work without anyone's help. Due to the accident,
he is unable to have marital life and nobody is coming forward to marry
him and he is living in vegetative stage. Hence, he filed a petition
claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/-.
2.1.The appellant insurance company filed a counter denying the
manner of the accident stated in the petition and they disputed their
liability to pay compensation. They pleaded that the first respondent
suddenly crossed the road without noticing the oncoming insured vehicle.
2.2.The first respondent to prove his claim, examined himself as
P.W.1 and further examined P.W.2 to P.W.5 on his side to prove the
negligence and his health condition and income. He also marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P21. The witness documents also were marked under Ex.X1 to Ex.X6
and the disability certificate was marked as Ex.C.1. On the side of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent, neither documents nor oral evidence were adduced.
3. Finding of the Tribunal
The learned Tribunal Judge considering the entire evidence, fixed
negligence on the appellant insured lorry driver and awarded
compensation of Rs.80,48,48067 under the following heads:
Sl. Heads Amount in (Rs)
No.
1 Disability Compensation (Grievous Rs.52,85,952/-
Injury)
2 Medical Bills Rs.9,35,115/-
3 Loss of Amenities Rs.3,00,000/-
4 Loss of Expectation of Life Rs.3,00,000/-
5 Pain and Suffering Rs.3,00,000/-
6 Loss of Marital Prospects Rs.2,00,000/-
7 Attender Charges Rs.25,000/-
8 Transport Charges Rs.20,000/-
9 Extra Nourishments Rs.30,000/-
10 Damages to Clothes Rs.2,000/-
11 Purchasing the Artificial Leg Rs.4,50,000/-
12 Future Medical Expenses Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Rs.80,48,067/-
Assailing the said award, the appellant insurance company filed this
appeal questioning the quantum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that
when Ex.P14 was marked as a last drawn salary of the first respondent,
the Tribunal erroneously fixed the monthly income of the claimant as
Rs.17,480/- as against the contents of Ex.P13 ie., Rs.13,531/-. The
learned Tribunal Judge also added 40% of future prospects. The learned
Tribunal Judge also wrongly calculated the age of the victim as 25 instead
of 26. The learned Tribunal Judge without deducting the mediclaim
amount has awarded medical expenditure of Rs.9,35,115/- and also erred
in granting excessive amount under the head of loss of amenities, loss of
expectation of life, loss of pain and suffering, loss of marital prospects
and under the head of purchase of prosthetic legs.
5. Submission of the learned counsel for the claimants:
The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the appellant
insured vehicle ran over both the legs of the injured. He was admitted in
the hospital as inpatient for more than two months and his both legs were
amputated below the knee. He was a bachelor at the time of the accident.
Due to the accidental injuries and the consequential amputation of his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
both legs, nobody is coming forward to marry him and hence, he totally
lost his marital life. He spent more amount for the artificial legs and in his
daily life and even after fitting of artificial legs, he is unable to stand and
do his normal activities without assistance of any person. The medical
board assessed 85% permanent disability and hence, he lost his job and
also he is unable to lead his normal life. In result, the learned trial Judge
correctly applied the multiplier method and added the future prospect and
applied the multiplier of 18 and granted Rs.52,85,952/- under the head of
loss of earning capacity. In view of the above suffering, the learned
Tribunal Judge correctly awarded under the remaining heads. Therefore,
there is no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of the
learned Tribunal Judge.
6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company and the learned
counsel appearing for the injured claimant and perused the materials
available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.The following points arise for consideration of this appeal:
7.1.Whether the compensation awarded under various heads in the
impugned award in M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2021 is liable to be interfered?
7.2.Whether the specific contention of the learned counsel for the
insurance company that mediclaim policy amount is liable to be deducted
while awarding the medical expenses in the course of determination of
the motor accident claims compensation?
8.Discussion
The first respondent herein was injured claimant. He examined
himself as P.W.1 and deposed that he completed his B.Sc graduation and
worked as Assistant Manager in the popular Dindigul Thalapakatti
Restaurant Private Limited Branch at Chennai. P.W.3/Manager of the said
branch was examined to prove the employment and the income of the
injured claimant. He produced the salary certificate marked as Ex.X4. The
same was marked without any objection. In the salary certificate, the
monthly income of the deceased is mentioned as Rs.17,480/-. Due to the
accident, his both legs were amputated. In spite of the artificial legs, he is
unable to continue his work as Assistant Manager. He was aged about 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
years at the time of the accident. Therefore, his future carrier is shattered.
Hence, the learned Tribunal Judge correctly added 40% for future
prospects. Hence, this Court is unable to accept the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that the learned trial
judge committed error in applying 40% for future prospects. In the injury
cases calculation of loss of income due to the disability happened due to
the accidental injuries has to be calculated for past and future. In the line
of the calculation of the future loss of income, there is no bar to apply the
future prospect in desirable cases. This case comes under the exceptional
case where the injured claimant was working as Assistant Manager at the
age of 25 years and hence, he has lost his further promotion avenue and is
also at the risk of losing his job. Therefore, this Court affirms the
calculation of the learned Tribunal Judge that the injured is entitled to
future prospects and the same would be Rs.24,472/- per month. The
learned Tribunal Judge, correctly applied the multiplier of 18, considering
the age of the injured as 25.
9. Medical Expenditure:
The learned Tribunal Judge upon perusal of all medical bills,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
granted medical expenditure of Rs.9,35,115/-. Due to the injuries and the
amputation of both legs, the injured had taken treatment as inpatient from
01.11.2022 to 30.12.2022. To prove the daily intake of medicines and
other expenditure, he produced the evidence and also examined the
hospital authorities. In the said circumstances, this Court finds no reason
to reject the case of the claimant to grant the medical expenditure of Rs.
9,35,115/-. Further, the insurance company has not raised any objection
to mark medical bills/Ex.P4, discharge summary/Ex.P3, Out patient
Slips/Ex.P6, Out patient Bills/Ex.P7 and the hospital authorities also were
examined. Therefore, this Court has no reason to doubt the genuineness
of the documents. Hence, the learned trial Judge correctly granted a sum
of Rs.80,48,067/-.
10.Discussion on Medi-claim:
10.1. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has
submitted that the learned tribunal judge failed to reduce the “mediclaim
insured amount” in the medical expenditure incurred by him.
10.2.Life always full of uncertainties. Medical emergency is one of
the limb of the uncertainties. One cannot expect to lead the day to day life
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
without any medical treatment. Sudden illness will lead the family into
miserable condition. Even in some incidents, there was loss of life due to
economic condition (emergency). To alleviate the said unexpected health
issue and consequential financial burden, the people choose mediclaim
policy. The people voluntary opt the same by making contract with
insurance company to meet out medical expenditure upon making
periodical payment of premium. In the said contract, the mediclaim policy
holder is entitled to reimbursement of the expenses that has been incurred
by him in the course of the treatment undergone due to the sudden
medical illness. The said reimbursement is arising out of contractual
obligation. This contractual reimbursement amount could not be
constructed as pecuniary advantage which cannot be taken advantage by
the tortfeasor to deduct the said amount from statutory compensation
under the Motor Vehicle Act.
10.3.Before introduction of the mediclaim policy, the similar
question of deduction of the amount received from the insurance
company under the insurance policy has arisen in the celebrated in case of
Bradburn Vs. Great Western Rly. Co. reported in (1874) L.R. 10 Exch
The court has rejected the stand that the insurance benefits received by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
railway accident victim were sought to be included in mitigation of
damages on behalf of the defendant-railway with the following
reasoning:-
“… there would be no justice or principle in
setting off an amount which the plaintiff has
entitled himself to under a contract of insurance,
such as any prudent man would make on the
principle of, as the expression is ‘laying by for a
rainy day’ … It is true that there must be the
element of accident in order to entitle him to the
money; but it is under and by reason of his
contract with the insurance company, that he gets
the amount; and I think it ought not, upon any
principle of justice, to be deducted from the
amount of the damages proved to have been
sustained by him through the negligence of the
defendants.”
10.4. The ratio in Bradburn's case had affirmed by the House of
Lords in the case of Perry v. Cleaver reported in 1969 A.C.J. 363.
Therein Lord Reid succinctly summed up the rationale for excluding
insurance benefits as under:
“As regards moneys coming to the plaintiff under a
contract of insurance, I think that the real and
substantial reason for disregarding them is that the
plaintiff has bought them and that it would be unjust
and unreasonable to hold that the money which he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prudently spent on premiums and the benefit from it
should enure to the benefit of the tortfeasor. Here again
I think that the explanation that this is too remote is
artificial and unreal. Why should the plaintiff be left
worse off than if he had never insured? In that case he
would have got the benefit of the premium money; if he
had not spent it he would have had it in his possession
at the time of the accident grossed up at compound
interest. I need not quote from the well-known case
of Bradburn v. Great Western Ry. Co..”
10.5.The above settled issue was also raised by the insurance
company before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Helen
C.Rebello (Mrs.) and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation and another reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90:and the Hon'bel
Supreme after considering the above principles has held that
37....the life insurance of the deceased is not
deductible from the compensation computed under the
Motor Vehicles Act...
10.6.The said principle laid down in the Helen C.Rebello (Mrs.)
and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and
another reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90 has been reiterated and applied in
the case of compassionate appointment, in the case of pensionary benefit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
or gratuity by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the following cases:-
10.6.1. In the case of Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan BI reported in
(2013) 7 SCC 476 at page 485:
Compassionate appointment may have nexus with
the death of an employee while in service but it is not
necessary that it should have a correlation with the
accidental death. An employee dies in harness even in
normal course, due to illness and to maintain the family
of the deceased one of the dependants may be entitled
for compassionate appointment but that cannot be
termed as “pecuniary advantage” that comes under the
periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act and any amount
received on such appointment is not liable for deduction
for determination of compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act.
10.6.2.In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekhaben,
reported in (2017) 13 SCC 547 at page 554
23....compensation is claimed from the owner of
the offending vehicle who is different from the employer
who has offered employment on compassionate grounds
to the dependants of the deceased/injured. The source
from which compensation on account of the accident is
claimed and the source from which the compassionate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
employment is offered, are completely separate and
there is no co-relation between these two sources. Since
the tortfeasor has not offered the compassionate
appointment, we are of the view that an amount which a
claimant earns by his labour or by offering his services,
whether by reason of compassionate appointment or
otherwise is not liable to be deducted from the
compensation which the claimant is entitled to receive
from a tortfeasor under the Act. In such a situation, we
are of the view that the financial benefit of the
compassionate employment is not liable to be deducted
at all from the compensation amount which is liable to
be paid either by the owner/the driver of the offending
vehicle or the insurer.
10.6.3. In the case of Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance Co.
Ltd., reported in (2019) 17 SCC 465 at page 472
12. The law is well settled that deductions cannot be
allowed from the amount of compensation either on
account of insurance, or on account of pensionary
benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin
of the deceased. The main reason is that all these
amounts are earned by the deceased on account of
contractual relations entered into by him with
others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the dependants or the legal heirs of the deceased
on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident.
The claimants/dependants are entitled to “just
compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act as a
result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle
accident. Therefore, the natural corollary is that the
advantage which accrues to the estate of the
deceased or to his dependants as a result of some
contract or act which the deceased performed in his
lifetime cannot be said to be the outcome or result of
the death of the deceased even though these amounts
may go into the hands of the dependants only after
his death.
10.6.4. Even after the said clear enunciation of the principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without any ambiguity, the learned
counsel appearing for number of insurance companies has thrown the said
stone to reap the fruit of the deduction of the mediclaim amount in the
motor vehicle accident compensation amount.
10.6.5.The issue of deduction of the mediclaim amount has been
considered by the Hon'ble Thiru Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar (as he
then was) in the case of Shaheed Ahmed Vs. Shankaranarayana Bhat
and another reported in ILR 2008 Kar 3277 in detail upon consideration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the various precedents reported in the case of Helen C Rebello and
others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another
reported in 1999 ACJ 10; in the case of B.Parimala vs. Riyaz Ahmed
reported in 2002 ACJ 154; in the case of Leela Gupta and others vs.
State of U.P.and others reported in 2005 ACJ 1739; in the case of
Bhagat Singh Sohan Singh vs Om Sharma and others reported in 1983
ACJ 203; in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation and another vs. Priyankreported in 2000 ACJ 701; in the
case of Vrajesh Navnitlal Desai vs Bagyam reported in 2001 ACJ 65;
and has held as follows:
6.... Any amount received or receivable not
only on account of accidental death or accidental
injuries but also that would have come to the
claimant even otherwise, could not be construed
to be a 'pecuniary advantage', liable for
deduction. Thus, the Mediclaim amount received
by the claimant from Sundaram Insurance
company in this matter cannot be deducted from
out of the total compensation to be paid to the
claimant.
7. The amount received by the claimant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
herein under Mediclaim policy from Sundaram
Insurance Company would not come within the
periphery of Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as
'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. When
we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be
on similar and same plane having nexus inter se
between them and not to which, there is no
semblance of any correlation. The insured
(deceased/injured) contributes his own money for
which he receives the amount, has not correlation
to the compensation computed as against the
tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the
accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as
compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is on
account of injury accidental or accidental death,
without making any contribution towards it. If it is
so, the fruits of the amount received through
contribution of the insured cannot be deducted out
of the amount receivable under Motor Vehicles Act.
It is to be noted that the compensation payable
under Motor Vehicles Act is statutory, while the
amount receivable under the Life Insurance Policy
or Mediclaim Policy is contractual.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.6.6.Hon'ble Thiru Justice R.V.Raveendran (as he then was), on
behalf of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of
B.Parimala and others vs. Riyaz Ahmed and others reported in 2002
ACJ 154 has dealt the similar issue and has held as follows:
14. In Helen Rebello the Supreme Court
held that only the pecuniary advantages which
accrue to the legal representatives, by reason of
the accidental death in the motor accident and
not the pecuniary advantages which would arise
on account of any other form of death can be
taken into account; and that, consequently no
deduction can be made on account of receipt of
Life Insurance amount received by the heirs of
the deceased on account of contract of insurance
between the deceased and insurer. In view of it,
the deduction of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of
receipt of Life Insurance amount from the amount
arrived at compensation, it un-sustainable.
10.6.7.The Division Bench of this court also in the case of Future
General India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Manivannan reported in 2024(1)
TNMAC 598 (DB) has also declined to accept the similar contention of
the learned counsel for insurance company to deduct the mediclaim
amount and held as follows :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The First respondent has already claimed a
sum of Rs.3,60,000/- under Group Accident Insurance
Police. The Tribunal considering the judgment of the
Karnataka High Court in Rajeshwari G.Bhuyar and
others v, Sindhu Travels and another, 2017 ACJ 87,
held that the amount claimed by the first respondent
under Group Accident Insurance Policy cannot be
deducted from the compensation granted towards
Medical Expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.
10,60,000/- towards Medical Expenses, which is not
interfered with. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal
under all other heads are just and reasonable and
hence, the same are hereby confirmed.
10.6.8.The Hon'ble Full Bench of the Punjab and Harayana in the
case of Bhagat Singh Sohan Singh v. Om Sharma, reported in 1982
SCC OnLine P&H 348 after elaborate discussion and consideration of
the on the judgment Bradburn v. Great Western Rly. Co. [(1874) L.R.
10 Exch 1. and Perry v. Cleaver reported in 1969 A.C.J. 363. and also
the amendment to the fatal accident Act in England to the effect that there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is no deduction is permissible during the course of the determination of
the compensation received from the other sources other then the accident
claim has answered the question of deduction of the receipt of
insurance, provident fund, pension or gratuity benefits negatively and
has held as follows :-
9. A long line of unbroken precedent had settled the law
that in cases of personal injury all sums received by the
injured by reasons of public or private benevolence were
out of ken for assessing damages. What was true in this
class of cases seems to be even more true in the context
of insurance benefits received by the injured because
these were obviously the results of a contract and the
payment of premia by him.
30. To finally conclude, the answer to the question
posed at the out-set is rendered in the negative and it
is held that the receipt of insurance, provident fund,
pension or gratuity benefits by the dependants of the
victim of an automobile accident must be altogether
excluded from consideration in the award of
compensation to them under Section 110-B of the
Motor Vehicles Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.6.9.The motor accident victim has got statutory right and
entitled to get just compensation from the tortfeasor as per the motor
vehicle Act. The medical reimbursement policy is payment on the basis of
the independent contract entered between victim and the insurance
company upon making the appropriate payment of premium. Therefore,
settlement of the medical expenses under the medical claim policy by way
of the medical reimbursement can have no bearing on the right of the
claimant to seek compensation towards the medical expenses. It is a
separate contract. Policy holder is paying separate premium for the
medical insurance policy. Hence, any amount that is claimed and received
from the said insurance company in obligation of the contract cannot be
deducted from the award passed by the tribunal arising out of the
accident. It is based on the principle that the tortfeasor cannot take
advantage of the insurance policy taken by the insured claimant. Further,
tortfeasor is a stranger to the said mediclaim contract. He is not entitled to
claim the said amount on behalf of the victim and he cannot enrich
himself with the medical reimbursement. Therefore, this court is not
inclined to deduct the mediclaim amount under the mediclaim policy
while awarding the medical expenditure. Accordingly, the 2nd question
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
answered negatively and consequently confirms the award under the head
of medical expenditure of Rs.9,35,115/- without deduction of the
mediclaim amount.
11.Loss of Amenities:
The learned trial Judge considering the entire evidence and the
damages assessed under this head by putting a money value on the
prospective balance of happiness in the years that the injured might have
otherwise lived. However, having regard to the uncertainties of life and
difficulties in assessment, very moderate sums are awarded under this
head. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and nature of
injuries namely both legs above knee were amputated and age of the
petitioner, the learned Tribunal Judge awarded Rs.3,00,000/- under the
head of loss of Expectation of Life.
12. Pain and Sufferings:
It is well settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed for
pain and sufferings in all the cases and it varies from case to case. A
judicial notice can be taken to the fact that since the petitioner had got
injuries as aforesaid, he might have suffered acute pain and sufferings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
owing to the said injuries. He would have taken heavy dose of anti-biotics
etc., and also might have remained without movements of his body for a
period. High Court of Delhi in the case of Sathya Narain Vs. Jai Kishan,
has held as follows:
“On account of pain and suffering, suffice
would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain
and suffering in terms of a money value. However,
compensation which has to be paid must bear some
objective co-relation with the pain and suffering.
The objective facts relatable to pain and
suffering is as follows:
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of the treatment”
Hence, the learned tribunal Judge correctly awarded a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings.
13. Loss of marital Prospects:
The life without marriage is like a car without garage.
The first respondent herein came into the box and deposed that due
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the accident, his both legs were amputated and further painfully
deposed that no one will come forward to marry him. In the said
circumstances, the learned trial Judge, correctly awarded a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- under the head of loss of marital prospects.
14. Attender charges:
The Injured claimant deposed that due to the amputation of his both
legs above knee, he is forced to live with prosthetic legs. Even after that
he is unable to do his daily routine without the help of others. Therefore,
the attendant charges are to be calculated and for the same a sum of
Rs.25,000/- was correctly awarded under the head of Attender Charges.
15. Transportation Expenses:
The learned Tribunal Judge has considered the place of accident
and the place of taking treatment, and has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
towards transportation charges.
16. Extra Nourishments:
The learned Tribunal Judge, is correct in awarding a sum of Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30,000/- for providing extra nourishing, vitamin enriched diet to the
patient for speedy recovery of the injured claimant.
17. Damages to Clothes and other Valuables:
Due to the accident, the clothes and the belongings of the injured
are damaged. Therefore, the learned Tribunal Judge correctly awarded a
sum of Rs.2,000/- under the head of damages to clothes and other
valuables.
18.Purchasing the Artificial Leg:
Due to the said accident, the injured claimant's both legs were
amputated. Therefore, the he purchased the prosthetic leg from above
knee from Endolite India Limited, Madurai, for which, he produced the
Invoice Bill, which was marked as Ex.X.6. Upon considering the same,
the learned Tribunal Judge has correctly awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-.
19.Future Medical Expenses:
Due to the accident, the injured has fixed prosthetic leg and the
same has to be maintained till his life time. It is no doubt that the injured
claimant has fixed an prosthetic limb. It is needless to say that prosthetic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
device will collect dirt, debris, dust and sweat, like any mechanical device
and the artificial limb will show signs of wear and tear. Certainly, it needs
to be repaired or maintained properly. Otherwise, it would cause problem
to his residual limb and he may incur expenses for maintaining artificial
leg. Therefore, by considering the same, the learned Tribunal Judge has
awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for maintenance of artificial leg till his
life time and the same is just and reasonable.
In all the heads, the learned Tribunal Judge has correctly awarded
the compensation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to reduce the
amount awarded by the Tribunal.
20. Conclusion
Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by
confirming the award passed by the learned Tribunal Judge. The
compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2021 on the file of the Motor
Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Judge, Tiruchirappalli,
dated 06.04.2023,is hereby confirmed. The appellant/insurance is directed
to deposit the award amount with accrued interest and costs, less any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
amount if already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. The injured claimant is entitled to
withdraw the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal with
accrued interest and costs by making necessary application before the
Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(V.B.S.J.,) (K.K.R.K.J.,)
28.10.2024
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
sbn
To
1.The Special Sub Court,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Tiruchirappalli.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J.,
and
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN.J.,
sbn
and
28.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
