Madras High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General vs Nadraj @ Natraj on 5 February, 2025
C.M.A.No.3075 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.M.A.No.3075 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.17441 of 2021
Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager
No.9, 1st Floor, Rajaji Road
State Bank of Trivancore Upstairs
Peramanur
Salem – 636 007. ... Appellant
vs.
1.Nadraj @ Natraj
2.P.Suresh ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.03.2020 in
MCOP.No.767 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Special Sub Judge) at Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : M/s.R.Sree Vidhya
For Respondents : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
This is the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the
award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation of Rs.8,31,484/- in favour of the injured claimant/1st
respondent herein.
2. Heard the argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Though the respondents are served and their names appear in the cause-list,
there is no representation for them.
3. According to the 1st respondent/claimant, when he was proceeding
as pillion rider in Pulsar Bike, a Mahindra Pick up Vehicle owned by the 2 nd
respondent herein insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company came
from the left side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bike in which
the claimant was travelling. Due to the accident, the claimant suffered a
fracture in his right knee. It is claimed by the claimant that he is a barber by
profession and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of accident. It
is also claimed that due to the injuries suffered by the accident, the claimant
is unable to do his work properly. Hence, he filed a claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The Insurance Company resisted the claim petition by denying all
the averments contained in the claim petition.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the 1st respondent/claimant, he
was examined as PW.1 and on the side of the appellant herein/Insurance
Company, three persons were examined as RW.1 to RW.3.
6. Based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to
the conclusion that the 1st respondent/claimant was entitled to Rs.8,31,484/-
as compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the
Tribunal, the appellant/insurance company has come before this Court by
way of filing this civil miscellaneous appeal
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance
Company advanced arguments only on the question of quantum and there is
no dispute on the question of negligence and liability. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that though
claimant suffered a fracture on his right knee, Tribunal which had an
opportunity to observe him, while he was examined as PW.1, recorded that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
he had no difficulty in standing and he had difficulty in walking. Having
regard to the nature of the avocation claimed by the 1 st respondent/claimant,
the Tribunal ought not have applied multiplier method. According to her,
the Tribunal ought have awarded compensation under the head of
Permanent Disability only on percentage basis.
8. The Ex.C1 is the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical
Board. A perusal of the same would suggest that the 1st respondent/claimant
suffered partial permanent disability at 40%. He suffered a fracture in the
Right Knee and he was examined as PW.1. Even in the order, the Tribunal
observed that PW.1 had no difficulty in standing and he had some difficulty
in walking. It is claimed by the 1st respondent/claimant that he is employed
as a barber. The work nature of barber requires standing, when Tribunal
observed that the claimant had no difficulty in standing, this Court comes to
the conclusion that nature of injury/disability suffered by the victim will not
interfere with his avocation. Therefore, there is no need to apply multiplier
method.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. In view of the same, this Court is constrained to calculate the
amount payable to the victim by applying the percentage basis. As per
Ex.C1-Disability Certificate, the victim suffered 40% disability. The
accident had taken place in the year 2016. Therefore, the victim is entitled
to Rs.6,000/- per percentage of disability (Rs.6,000 * 40 = 2,40,000/-). The
1st respondent/claimant is entitled to Rs.2,40,000/- under the head partial
permanent disability instead of Rs.6,42,600/- as ordered by the Tribunal.
10. As far as the amount awarded under various other heads are
concerned, the same appears to be reasonable and requires no interference.
Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified as follows:-
Sl. Description Compensation Compensation
No. awarded by the awarded by
Tribunal this Court
1. Partial loss of earnings Rs.6,42,600/- Rs.2,40,000/-
2. Transportation, Nutrition Charges Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
3. Pain and Sufferings Rs.32,000/- Rs.32,000/-
Loss of amenities & enjoyment of
4. Rs.32,000/- Rs.32,000/-
life
5. Damages to cloth and articles Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/-
6. Medical Bills Rs.98,884/- Rs.98,884/-
Total Rs.8,31,484/- Rs.4,28,884/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/insurance company that the insurance company already deposited
the entire award amount. Therefore, in view of the reduction of the
compensation amount, the appellant/insurance company is entitled to
withdraw the balance award amount in deposit with proportionate accrued
interest. It is also stated that Tribunal permitted the 2 nd respondent
therein/Insurance Company to pay the award amount to the 1st respondent
herein/Claimant and recover the same from the 1st respondent therein/2nd
respondent herein. The said finding is not interfered with.
12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is
closed.
05.02.2025
Index :Yes/No
Speaking order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Special Sub Judge), Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
05.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
