Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Muniraj on 15 April, 2025
CMA.No.561 of 2025 and Cross obj. No.14 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 15.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMA No.561 of 2025 and
Cross objection No.14 of 2025 and
CMP No.4293 of 2025
CMA No.561 of 2025
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Manager, 4/3-1 & 3/2 M, 11th Main,
3rd Block, Jaya Nagar, Bangalore 560 061. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Muniraj
2. S.Prasanna ... Respondents
Prayer in CMA No.561 of 2025: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award and
decree dated 05.04.2016 made in MCOP No.289 of 2013 on the file of
the Sub Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosur.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 02:43:59 pm )
CMA.No.561 of 2025 and Cross obj. No.14 of 2025
Cross Objection No.14 of 2025
Muniraj .. Cross Objector
Vs.
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
The Branch Manager, 4/3-1 & 3/2 M, 11th Main,
3rd Block, Jaya Nagar, Bangalore 560 061.
2. S.Prasanna ... Respondents
Prayer in CMA No.561 of 2025 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award and
decree dated 05.04.2016 made in MCOP No.289 of 2013 on the file of
the Sub Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosur.
Prayer in Cross Objection No.14 of 2025: Cross objection filed
under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC against the award and decree dated
05.04.2016 made in MCOP No.289 of 2013 on the file of the Sub
Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosur.
In CMA No.561 of 2025
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 02:43:59 pm )
CMA.No.561 of 2025 and Cross obj. No.14 of 2025
For appellant : Mr. S.Arunkumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar
for M/s Mukund R.Pandian for R1
Notice dispensed with for R2
In Cross obj.No.14 of 2025
For Cross objector: Mr. P.Dinesh Kumar
for M/s Mukund R.Pandian
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arunkumar for first respondent
Notice dispensed with for R2
COMMON JUDGMENT
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the insurance
company and the cross objection has been filed by the injured claimant
and both have been filed challenging the award passed by the Tribunal
in MCOP No.289 of 2013, dated 05.04.2016.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in CMA No.561 of 2025.
3. According to the first respondent/injured claimant, he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 02:43:59 pm )
CMA.No.561 of 2025 and Cross obj. No.14 of 2025
travelling in a bullock cart along with one Srikanth and his son Barath.
When they were proceeding in Hosur-Krishnagiri National Highway, a
container lorry belonged to the second respondent and insured with the
appellant herein came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the bullock cart from the back side. As a result of accident, the
first respondent/ claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was treated
in hospital. Hence, the first respondent filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
4. The second respondent herein remained exparte before the
Tribunal and the appellant herein, insurer of the container lorry filed
counter and contested the claim petition. It was the case of the insurer
before the Tribunal that the accident had occurred only due to the rash
and negligent driving of the bullock cart by its driver.
5. The Tribunal, based on evidence available on record, came to
the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the negligent
driving of the container lorry by its driver and accordingly, directed the
insurance company to pay compensation in its capacity as insurer of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 02:43:59 pm )
CMA.No.561 of 2025 and Cross obj. No.14 of 2025
container lorry. The amount payable to the claimant was quantified at
Rs.19,40,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal,
the insurance company has filed the present appeal and not satisfied
with the quantum of compensation, the claimant filed the Cross
Objection seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company
would submit that the claimant has not subjected himself for
examination by the medical Board and therefore, the Tribunal
committed an error in fixing 75% disability, based on the disability
certificate issued by the private doctor.
7. The learned counsel for the first respondent/injured claimant
would submit that the notional income of Rs.6,500/- fixed by the
Tribunal is very meager and hence, the same requires enhancement.
8. In the present case on hand, the accident had occurred in the
year 2012, well prior to the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of
this Court in The Branch Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 02:43:59 pm )
CMA.No.561 of 2025 and Cross obj. No.14 of 2025
Company Limited Vs. Prabhu and another reported in 2016 (1)
TANMAC 609, in which it was held that examination of the injured by
the Medical Board is a compulsory one. Therefore, since the accident
in the instant case had occurred prior to the direction issued by the
Division Bench of this court in the above mentioned case, the claimant
can very well rely on the evidence of PW3 doctor and the disability
certificate issued by him.
9. It is seen from the records that the PW3, who examined the
claimant deposed that he was an orthopaedic surgeon and due to the
head injury suffered by the claimant, he was disabled from attending
the day to day activities and hence, he fixed 75% disability. Though he
deposed about the neurological deficit suffered by the claimant, as seen
from his evidence, he was only an orthopaedic surgeon. The claimant
has not examined any neurologist to prove the alleged neurological
deficit suffered by him.
10. It is the case of the claimant that the deceased was a painter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 02:43:59 pm )
CMA.No.561 of 2025 and Cross obj. No.14 of 2025
and due to the injury suffered by him, he is not in a position to
discharge his duties as painter. Therefore, the amount fixed by the
Tribunal at Rs.6,500/- as notional income needs enhancement.
11. The Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.6,500/- as notional income of
the deceased, based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Syed Saidq
and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Company Limited reported in2014(1) TN MAC 459 (SC) and applied
multiplier method. The Tribunal also granted 50% enhancement
towards future prospects. But, the claimant is not in permanent
employment and hence, as per the law settled by the Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi Case, the claimant is entitled to only 40% enhancement
towards future prospects. Therefore, 50% future prospects fixed by the
Tribunal is on higher side and the same is reduced to 40%. Though the
Tribunal had taken 75% disability as assessed by the orthopaedic
surgeon, it appears, he is not a doctor, who treated the claimant at the
time of accident. Further, he is not an expert in neurology. Taking into
consideration all the above factors, this court feels that there is no
necessity to enhance the notional income of Rs.6,500/- fixed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 02:43:59 pm )
CMA.No.561 of 2025 and Cross obj. No.14 of 2025
Tribunal.
12. As discussed earlier, the evidence of PW3 and the disability
certificate issued by him, which was marked as Ex.P29, cannot be
ignored merely on the ground that the claimant was not examined by
the Medical Board, since the accident had occurred prior to the
delivery of judgment by the Division Bench in the Prabhu case cited
supra. Therefore, I do not find anything to interfere with the findings of
the Tribunal and hence, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is
affirmed.
13. Accordingly, the CMA No.561 of 2025 filed by the insurance
company is dismissed. The Cross Objection No.14 of 2025 filed by the
claimant is also dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14. The appellant/ insurance company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest
and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 02:43:59 pm )
CMA.No.561 of 2025 and Cross obj. No.14 of 2025
deposit being made, the first respondent/claimant shall be permitted to
withdraw the compensation amount along with interest and costs, less
the amount if any, already withdrawn, by making formal application
before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. It is seen that the first respondent/ claimant is represented by
his wife before the Tribunal. Therefore, if any application is filed by the
first respondent rep. by his wife for withdrawal of the amount, the
Tribunal shall permit the claimant, after due verification.
15.04.2025
Index :Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
mst
To
1. The Sub Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribual, Hosur.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 02:43:59 pm )
CMA.No.561 of 2025 and Cross obj. No.14 of 2025
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
mst
CMA No.561 of 2025 and
15.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 02:43:59 pm )
