Madras High Court
The United India Insurance Company Ltd vs N.Anandakumar ..1St on 19 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.1175 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 19.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No.1175 of 2018
and C.M.P(MD)No.12113 of 2018
The United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Door No.111/2,
K.T.C. Complex,
New Scheme Road,
Pollachi ...Appellant/3rd Respondent
Vs.
1.N.Anandakumar ..1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.S.Sakthivel
3.P.Kanagaraj ...Respondents 2 & 3/Respondents 1 &2
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated
06.02.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.89 of 2008 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub Court, Palani.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
For R1 : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For R3 & R4 : Given up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 8
C.M.A.(MD)No.1175 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The respondent No.1/claimant filed a claim petition stating that
while he was travelling in a motorcycle as a pillion rider, a lorry insured
with the appellant came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite
direction and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which, he
sustained grievous injuries.
3. The owner of the lorry/2nd respondent herein filed a counter
denying the averments in the claim petition and stated that in any case,
the compensation claimed was excessive.
4. The appellant filed a counter reiterating the averments made by
the owner of the lorry and stated that the compensation claimed was
excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and
the doctor, namely, Shanmugarajan, as P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. The appellant neither examined witnesses nor marked documents.
The disability certificate was marked as Ex.C.1.
6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,77,180/-
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the
absence of any evidence suggesting functional disability, the Tribunal
ought not to have adopted the multiplier method; and that the
compensation under the other heads is also excessive.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant, per
contra, submitted that the claimant had established before the Tribunal
that he was working as a goldsmith; that due to the accident, he could not
work for long hours and his working hours were reduced considerably;
that therefore, the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier method to
grant compensation under the head 'loss of income'; that the award of
compensation under the other conventional heads is also meagre; and
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the
submissions made on either side and carefully perused the materials
available on record.
10. The point for consideration in the instant appeal is as follows:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
11. The 1st respondent/claimant had examined himself as P.W.1 and
the doctor as P.W.2, who had deposed that the claimant had suffered
fractures in his right tibia and fibula bones. The doctor, P.W.2, had
deposed that due to the accident, the claimant was unable to rotate his
knees normally and therefore, he had assessed the disability at 30%.
From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, this Court finds that there is
nothing to infer that the claimant had suffered any functional disability.In
the absence of any evidence to show that the claimant had suffered any
functional disability, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought not
to have adopted the multiplier method. However, the claimant is entitled
to compensation under the head 'disability' by adopting the percentage
method. The claimant had admittedly suffered 30% disability.
Considering the year of the accident, a sum of Rs.3,000/- can be awarded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for a percentage of disability. Therefore, a sum of Rs.90,000/- is awarded
for 'disability' instead of Rs.3,06,000/- awarded under the head loss of
income by taking the disability at 30%.
12. As regards the compensation under the head 'pain and
suffering', the nature of injuries, the period of treatment and the nature of
surgeries have to be considered. Considering the same, the compensation
awarded under the head 'pain and suffering' can be enhanced to
Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head
'loss of amenities'. This Court grants Rs.50,000/- under the said head in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. As per the certificate issued by the Doctor, during the surgery
performed for treating the fracture suffered by the claimant, plate and
screws were fixed and approximately Rs.1 lakh would be necessary for
the removal of the plate screws. Considering the nature of surgeries and
the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.50,000/-
can be granted under the head 'for future medical expenses'. Further, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- each for transport charges and extra
nourishment. This Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.15,000/- each
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
can be granted under the said heads. Thus, the award of compensation is
modified as follows:
Sl. Heads of Amount Amount Award
No. Compensation awarded by awarded by confirmed
Tribunal this Court or
(Rs.) (Rs.) enhanced
or granted
1. Loss of income 3,06,000.00 Nil Deleted
2. Disability Nil 90,0000.00 Granted
3. Pain and suffering 25,000.00 50,000.00 Enhanced
4. Extra nourishment 10,000.00 15,000.00 Enhanced
5. Loss of damages to 5,000.00 5,000.00 Confirmed
clothes
6. Transport Charges 10,000.00 15,000.00 Enhanced
7. Medical Expenses 1,21,180.00 1,21,180.00 Confirmed
8. Loss of Amenities Nil 50,000.00 Granted
9. Future Medical Nil 50,000.00 Granted
expenses
Total : 4,77,180.00 3,96,180.00 Reduced
14. The appellant is directed to deposit the modified compensation
with accrued interest within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount already
deposited. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the
amount by filing a suitable application. If the appellant has deposited any
excess amount, it is open to them to file an application seeking refund of
the excess amount before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. In fine, this appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub Court, Palani.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in
and C.M.P(MD)No.12113 of 2018
19.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
