Madras High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ramkumar on 5 February, 2025
C.M.A.No.3267 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.3267 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.18572 of 2021
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Aathur. ... Appellant
vs.
1.Ramkumar
2.Gunasekar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 07.07.2018
and made in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Villupuram, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Villupuram, Principal District Court, Villupuram in M.C.O.P.No.163 of
2016.
For Appellant : Mr.Vadivel S.
For R1 : Mr.S.Chendur Eashwaran
for M/s.E.R.Ramesh
For R2 : Notice Dispense With
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellant/insurance company has come by
way of this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. It is not in dispute that 1st respondent/claimant suffered injury in a
road accident that had taken place on 08.10.2015. Since no arguments are
advanced on the question of negligence as well as liability, facts necessary
for considering those aspects are not discussed in this judgment.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant advanced
arguments only on the question of quantum of compensation.
4. According to the 1st respondent/claimant, he was aged about 24
years at the time of accident and he was employed as a Tailor in the shop of
PW.2. It was claimed that he received a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month as
salary and due to the accident, he was totally disabled to continue his work
and his earning capacity got affected. Therefore, the petitioner filed a claim
petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the 1st respondent/claimant, he
was examined as PW.1 and two other persons were examined as PW.2 and
PW.3. On the side of the appellant herein/Insurance Company, no one was
examined.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs.26,08,500/- as compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, the
appellant/insurance company has come by way of this appeal.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance
Company would submit that though Medical Board issued Disability
Certificate fixing Locomotor Disability at 70%, the Tribunal committed a
serious error in taking it as 100% disability. The learned counsel further
submitted that income of the injured fixed at Rs.18,000/- per month is very
much on the higher side.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/claimant
would submit that though the Tribunal had taken Locomotor Disability as
100%, it converted the same into 33.33% for whole body and considered
only 33.33% at the time of calculation. Therefore, the submission made by
the appellant/insurance company cannot be accepted. The learned counsel
further submitted that as per the Salary Certificate issued by the employer of
the victim, PW.2, which was marked as Ex.P22, the victim was given
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.600/- per day as salary and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fixing
the income of victim as Rs.18,000/- per month.
9. A perusal of the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board,
which was marked as Ex.P18, the claimant suffered amputation at foot
through tarsal bones done in the right lower limb. The petitioner also
suffered injury in his left lower limb and at the time of examination, he was
suffering from pain and restricted ROM at ankle. The Medical Board had
given its opinion fixing the Locomotor Disability at 70%.
10. Taking into consideration, the avocation of the injured and the
nature of the injury mentioned in the Disability Certificate, the Tribunal
treated 70% Locomotor Disability as 100% and converted the same for
whole body as 33.33% (1/3rd). Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the
compensation under the head partial permanent disability, the Tribunal
applied only Disability Percentage of 33% (whole body). Therefore, the
same requires no interference.
11. The Tribunal fixed income of the injured at Rs.18,000/- per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
month. Though Ex.P22-Salary Certificate issued by the employer of the
injured would indicate that he was paid with Rs.600 per day, we cannot
presume that the injured would work for all the 30 days. If we say injured
work for nearly 25 days, he will be entitled to Rs.15,000/-. Even otherwise
having regard to the date of the accident (08.10.2015), the notional income
can be fixed at Rs.15,000/-.
12. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to fix Rs.15,000/- as
monthly income of the injured. In that case, the claimant is entitled to a sum
of Rs.15,12,000/- under the head compensation for partial permanent
disability (Rs.15,000 + 40% towards future prospects = Rs.21,000)
(Rs.21,000*12*18*1/3=15,12,000/-). The compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under various other heads are reasonable and therefore, the same
requires no interference.
13. As far as the compensation under the head disability which
includes future prospects, the claimant is entitled to Rs.15,12,000/-. The
Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head loss of amenities.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of amenities. In all the claimant is entitled to Rs.23,25,840/- instead of
Rs.26,08,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the award passed
by the Tribunal is modified as follows:-
Sl. Description Compensation Compensation
No. awarded by the awarded by
Tribunal this Court
Compensation for Disability
1. Rs.12,96,000/-
Rs.15,12,000/-
2. For loss of future prospect (40%) Rs.5,18,400/-
3. Pain and Sufferings Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
4. Extra nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
5. Attender Charges 3x9000) Rs.27,000/- Rs.27,000/-
6. Loss of clothes Rs.3,000/- Rs.3,000/-
Transportation charges
7. Rs.53,200/- Rs.53,200/-
(Ex.P14 and Ex.P17
Medical Bills
8. 6,70,640/- 6,70,640/-
(Ex.P15 and Ex.P16)
9. Loss of Amenities - Rs.20,000/-
Rs.26,08,240/-
Total (rounded off to Rs.23,25,840/-
Rs.26,08,500/-)
14. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant by virtue of
interim order passed by this Court, the appellant/Insurance Company had
deposited 50% of the award amount and the balance amount as per the
modified award shall be deposited by the appellant/insurance company,
within the time stipulated by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. In view of the same, the balance amount as per the modified
award shall be deposited by the Appellant/Insurance Company together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum before the Tribunal, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount
by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.
16. 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
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Villupuram,
(Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram,
Principal District Court, Villupuram)
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
