Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Nagappan ... 1St on 19 February, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
2025:MHC:473
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 18.12.2024
Pronounced on 19.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A.No.1305 of 2023
C.M.P.No.13044 of 2023
and
Cros.Obj.No.77 of 2023
C.M.A.No.1305 of 2023
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Area Manager (Legal)
Claims Department, 6th Floor,
No.6, Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-6. ... Appellant / 2nd Respondent
-vs-
1. R.Nagappan ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2. V.Baskar ... 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Award dated April 12, 2022
made in MCOP No.4292 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Chennai (IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 14
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sunilkumar
For R1 : Mr.Amar Dineshbhai Pandiya
For R2 : No appearance
CROS.OBJ.NO.77 of 2023
R.Nagappan ... Cross Objector / Petitioner
-vs-
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Area Manager (Legal)
Claims Department, 6th Floor,
No.6, Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 6.
2. V.Baskar ... Respondents / Respondents
PRAYER: Cross Objection filed under Order XL Rule 22 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 praying for enhancement of compensation awarded vide
Award dated April 12, 2022 made in MCOP No.4292 of 2014 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai (IV Court of Small
Causes, Chennai).
For Cross Objectors : Mr.Amar Dineshbhai Pandiya
For R1 : Mr.R.Sunilkumar
For R2 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2 of 14
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated April 12, 2022 passed
by the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai (IV Court of Small
Causes, Chennai)' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P.No.4292 of 2014, the
second respondent therein / Insurance Company has preferred
C.M.A.No.1305 of 2023 praying to set aside the Award, while the
petitioner therein has preferred Cross Objection No.77 of 2023 praying to
enhance the compensation. This Common Judgment will now decide both,
the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred to as per their array in the Motor Accident Claim Original
Petition.
Petitioner's case:
3. On March 23, 2014 at about 09.00 a.m., while the
petitioner was travelling as an occupant in a car bearing Registration No.
TN-21-AY-1697 on Chithamoor to Maduranthagam Road near
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
Nethapakkam Aattai Company, the driver of the car drove it in a rash and
negligent manner endangering the public safety, and suddenly applied the
brakes. As a result, the car capsized. The petitioner sustained grievous
injuries. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 30 years
and was a Mason by profession earning a sum of Rs.600/- per day.
According to the petitioner, the accident occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the car. The 1st respondent is the owner
of the car involved in the accident, while the 2 nd respondent is its insurer
vide Policy No.C1212532311000032 with validly for the period from June
13, 2013 to June 12, 2014 i.e., it was valid on the date of accident. Hence,
both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal
seeking compensation of Rs.98,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety-Eight Lakhs
only) along with interest and costs.
First Respondent :
4. The 1st respondent being the owner of the said car remained
absent before Tribunal and therefore, he was called absent and set
ex-parte.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
Second Respondent's case :
5. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed a
counter merely denying all the petition averments. The age, income and
occupation of the petitioner were denied. It was further denied that the 1st
respondent's Driver had a valid driving license and his car was insured
with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident. The claim of the petitioner
was stoutly opposed as excessive. In short, the Counter is nothing more
than a formal denial, seeking dismissal of the Claim Petition.
Tribunal :
6. The instant Claim Petition in M.C.O.P. No.4292 of 2014
was tried jointly with M.C.O.P. Nos.4291 and 4293 of 2014 as they all
arise out of one and the same accident. At trial, on the side of the
petitioner in the instant Claim Petition, the petitioner himself was
examined as P.W.3 and Ex-P.16 to Ex-P.26 were marked. Neither any
witness was examined nor any document was marked on the side of the
second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
7. The Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary
evidence adduced before it, held that the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligence on the part of first respondent’s driver and that first
respondent’s car was insured with second respondent. Accordingly, the
Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition, held the 2nd respondent liable
to pay compensation to the petitioner and awarded compensation as
hereunder:
Sl.No. Head Amount
1 Disability Rs.36,28,800.00
2 Medical Expenses Rs.24,709.00
3 Future Medical Expenses Rs.50,000.00
4 Pain and Suffering Rs.3,00,000.00
5 Loss of Marital Pleasure to Wife Rs.2,00,000.00
6 Transportation Expenses Rs.50,000.00
7 Additional Nourishment Rs.2,00,000.00
8 Damages to Clothes Rs.1,000.00
9 Attender Charges Rs.4,00,000.00
10 Loss of Amenities Rs.2,00,000.00
11 Mental Agony Rs.2,00,000.00
Total Rs.52,54,509.00
Rounded off Rs.52,54,500.00
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said Award, the second
respondent – Insurance Company has preferred the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal.
9. Dissatisfied with the Award amount, the petitioner has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
preferred the Cross Objection praying to enhance the Award amount.
Arguments :
10. The learned Counsel for the appellant / 2nd respondent –
Insurance Company argued that the alleged disability of the petitioner
needs to be assessed by the duly constituted Medical Board and the
Disability Certificate produced by the petitioner from an individual Doctor
is contrary to the statutory requirement. Further, three persons sustained
injuries in the same accident. When in a common trial two out of three of
the claimants have proved their disability by undergoing assessment
before the duly constituted Medical Board, the Tribunal ought to have
maintained uniformity by insisting the petitioner also to produce disability
certificate issued by a duly constituted Medical Board. The Tribunal
grossly erred in relying on the outdated and unapproved assessment to
grant a huge amount of compensation of Rs.52,54,500/-. The percentage
of disability mentioned in the Disability Certificate i.e., 70% is not in
consonance with the injuries suffered by the petitioner. Further, the
Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method by accepting the
disability certificate in the absence of the certificate issued by the duly
constituted Medical Board. The submission of the claimant that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
insurance policy is a package policy has been disputed by the learned
counsel for the insurance company. Further, the Award amount is
excessive and not justifiable. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
11. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Cross Objector /
petitioner submitted that the total compensation awarded viz.,
Rs.52,54,500/- is on the lower side. The Tribunal failed to consider the age
of the petitioner at the time of accident and fixed Rs.13,500/- as his
monthly income, which is too low and against various reported judgments
that laid down the guidelines for fixing notional income. The Tribunal
failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence placed before it for
awarding just and adequate compensation. In any event, the Award of the
Tribunal is palpably low and the same deserves to be enhanced in
adequate measure. The petitioner is bedridden now and he cannot move
without anyone's help. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the Cross
Objection and enhance the compensation.
Discussion :
12. This Court has considered the submissions on either side
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
and perused the materials available on record.
13. There is no dispute with regard to manner of accident that
the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the first respondent’s car.
14. Insofar as the contention of the insurance company that
the insurance policy is not a package policy is concerned, this Court
perused the copy of the insurance policy marked before the Tribunal as
Ex-P.3, from which, it is obvious that the occupants of the car are covered
by Ex-P.3. The next contention put forth by the insurance company was
that the assessment of disability by an individual Doctor was not in
consonance with the established norms, and it is not permissible in
evidence and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
tune of Rs.52,54,509/- is on the higher side.
15. It is worthwhile to refer to the Judgments of this Court in
the cases of The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Cuddalore -vs- Minor
Giridharan rep.by his next friend and mother Lalitha (C.M.A.Nos.2337
of 2015 etc batch) dated March 13, 2020 and G.Arockiya Doss -vs-
S.Syed Ibrahim (C.M.A.No.345 of 2022) dated March 31, 2022, wherein
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
it was held that Disability Certificates should be obtained from the District
Medical Boards of Tamil Nadu as per the formats stipulated in the
Notification dated 04.01.2018, while assessing the percentage of
Permanent Disability of the injured / claimant in the motor accident cases.
The District and Subordinate Courts dealing with MCOP cases shall
accept only such statutory certificates to fix the percentage of disability.
16. In the given case, the disability certificate was obtained
from a Government Doctor assessing the disability at 70%. The Tribunal
arrived at a compensation of Rs.36,28,800/- towards disability / loss of
income, taking note of 100% functional disability of the petitioner. It is
relevant to note that the petitioner was a Mason at the time of accident and
he needs a good physical strength to carry out masonry works. Even
assuming for the sake of argument that he suffered only 50% permanent
disability, he cannot be hired for any masonry works on account of severe
injuries and damage by trauma in the spinal cord
17. Though there seems to be some substance in the argument
of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the disability
certificate was not obtained in a prescribed format from the Medical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
Board, when seen in depth, the petitioner cannot do his regular work with
the disability sustained by him in the accident. Because of this accident, he
suffered Traumatic Paraplegia, which is a permanent disability that occurs
due to spinal cord damage by trauma, resulting in loss of movement and
sensation in the lower body. He has also become bedridden and is
dependent on somebody's assistance, as his lower body has become
dysfunctional. Hence, the functional disability drawn by the Tribunal is
valid in the eyes of law.
18. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the head 'Loss
of Marital Pleasure to wife' is concerned, there is no evidence produced as
to whether the petitioner was married or not and therefore, the
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded for the said head is removed.
Further, compensation awarded for 'Additional Nourishment' and 'Attender
charges' is required to be modified slightly.
19. In fine, the compensation awarded to the petitioner/Cross
Objector is hereby reduced to Rs.47,04,509/- (rounded off to
Rs.47,04,500/-) Accordingly, the petitioner/Cross Objector is entitled to
get a compensation of Rs.47,04,500/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Four
Thousand and Five Hundred only). The revised compensation is as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
detailed below:-
Sl.No. Head Amount
1. Disability Rs.36,28,800/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs.24,709/-
3. Future Medical Expenses Rs.50,000/-
4. Pain and Suffering Rs.3,00,000/-
5. Loss of Marital Pleasure to wife Nil
6. Transporation Expenses Rs.50,000/-
7. Additional Nourishment Rs.50,000/-
8. Damages to Clothes Rs.1,000/-
9. Attender charges (Lump sum) Rs.3,00,000/-
10. Loss of Amenities Rs.2,00,000/-
11. Mental Agony Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.47,04,509/-
Rounded off to Rs.47,04,500/-
20. Therefore, the appellant / Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the reduced award amount of Rs.47,04,500/- (Rupees Forty
Seven Lakhs Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till
the date of deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.4292 of 2014 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai (IV Court of Small Causes,
Chennai), less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such
deposit being made, the petitioner / Cross Objector is entitled to withdraw
the same by filing proper application.
Result :
21. In the result, the C.M.A.No.1305 of 2023 filed by the
insurance company is partly allowed. Cross Objection No.77 of 2023
preferred by the Injured is dismissed. In view of the facts and
circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
[J.N.B., J.] [R.S.V., J.]
19.02.2025
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
ar/tk
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai)
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1305 of 2023 & Cros.Obj. No.77 of 2023
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
ar/tk
Pre-Delivery Common Judgment made in
19 . 02 . 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
