Madras High Court
M/S.National Insurance Company Ltd vs R.Vasanthi on 26 April, 2021
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
C.M.A.No.1690 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.1690 of 2019
M/s.National Insurance Company Ltd,
No.378, Mint Street,
Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 001. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Vasanthi
2.R.S.Sathish Kumar
3.K.Thanigavel ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree order dated
27.01.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.4084 of 2013, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, (V Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
For Appellant : M/s.R.Sreevidhya
For Respondents : R1 No appearance
R2 and R3 Not ready in notice
JUDGMENT
There is no representation on behalf of the respondents/claimants continuosly. Therefore this appeal is taken up for final hearing. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 1 of 7 C.M.A.No.1690 of 2019
2.By the impugned judgment and decree, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,63,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant under the following heads:-
Transportation Rs. 40,000/-
Damage to clothes Rs. 1,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs. 8,000/-
Disability Rs.2,10,000/-
Loss of earning during the period Rs. 39,000/-
of treatment
Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.3,63,000/-
3.The appellant/Insurance Company is aggreived by the aforesaid compensation in so far as compensation awarded towards disability for a sum of Rs.2,10,000. The aforesaid amount has been awarded by considering 70% disability as against 80% partial permanent disability assessed by the P.W2 and disability certificate at Rs.3,000 per percentage.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered in as much as wrongly fixed 70% disability. Though there is no representation on behalf of the _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 2 of 7 C.M.A.No.1690 of 2019 appellant, as there is no proposal to drastically reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposed.
5.As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, in the case of partial permanent disability, the Tribunal is required to assess the functional disability of the claimant/injured for awarding compensation. Since she was assessed to partial permanent disability, the correct method for determination of compensation would be a multiplier and not on percentage basis.
6.The evidence of the expert before the Tribunal cannot be overlooked by the High Court in the exercise of power under Section 173 of the V Act, 1988, as the Tribunal is the ultimate fact finding authority. The P.W2 has assessed 80% partial permanent disability for the injuries. He has issued Exhibit P.W9. It appears that the respondent was a house wife. Though in the claim petition, the occupation of the respondent is stated to be a business and she was purpotedly earning a sum of _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 3 of 7 C.M.A.No.1690 of 2019 Rs.10,000 per month. There are no records to substantiate there was earning. Be that as it may, considering the year of accident in the year 2013 i.e, 14.04.2012, a notional monthly income of Rs.10,000 appears reasonable to award compensation. The nature of injuries indicates that there is a partial permanent disability. Therefore, adoption of multiplier is the correct method. The nature of injury may have partially impacted the 1st respondent.
7.Therefore the compensation for the purpose of awarding a just compensation to the 1st respondent by applying multiplier by considering 7.5% functional disability. The amount of compensation awarded towards disability is re-quantified as follows:-
_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 4 of 7 C.M.A.No.1690 of 2019 Loss of disability Rs.2,01,600/- Monthly Income of the deceased Rs.10,000/-
Add Future Prospects
10,000 x 40% Rs. 4,000/-
----------------
Rs. 14,000
Annual Income
(14,000X12) Rs. 1,68,000
Multiplier X 16 Rs.26,88,000
X 7.5% functional disability Rs. 2,01,600
9.In the result, the compensation of Rs.3,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is re-computed as Rs.3,54,600/- [3,63,000 - 2,10,000 + 2,01,600].
10.The appellant/Insurance Company is therefore directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.3,54,600/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the claim petition till the date of such deposit, less any amount already deposited by it, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 5 of 7 C.M.A.No.1690 of 2019
11.On such deposit being made by the appellant/Insurance Company, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same together with interest accrued thereon, less any amount already withdrawn in the same proportion as was ordered by the Tribunal.
12.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands Partly Allowed. No costs.
26.04.2021 jas Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To:
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (V Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madras High Court.
_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 6 of 7 C.M.A.No.1690 of 2019 C.SARAVANAN, J.
jas C.M.A.No.1690 of 2019 26.04.2021 _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 7 of 7