Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs E.Ponnurangam on 17 April, 2012
Author: K.Mohan Ram
Bench: K.Mohan Ram, M.Duraiswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.04.2012
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.918 of 2010 and 1235 of 2010
and M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 and 1 of 2012
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
A.R.Complex, 1st Floor,
No.1090, E.V.R.Periyar Salai,
Chennai 600 084 ... Appellant in CMA No.918 / 2010
& R-2 in CMA No.1235 / 2010
-Vs.-
1. E.Ponnurangam,
S/o. M.Ekambaram ... R-1 in CMA No.918 / 2010
& Appellant in CMA No.1235 / 2010
2. G.Balaji ... R-2 in CMA No.918 / 2010
& R-1 in CMA No.1235 / 2010
(R-2 in CMA No.918 / 2010 remained
exparte in the
lower court, hence notice
is dispensed with for him)
Prayer :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in MACTC OP No.3587 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai, dated 15.12.2009.
For Appellant in CMA No.918 / 2010 &
For R-2 in CMA No.1235 / 2010 : Mr.M.Krishnamurthy
For R-1 in CMA No.918 / 2010
& For appellant in CMA No.12356 / 2010 : Ms.P.T.Salim Fathima
- - -
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.Mohan Ram, J.,) Being aggrieved by the award, dated 15.12.2009, passed in MACT OP No.3587 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, the insurer has filed CMA No.918 of 2010. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed CMA No.1235 of 2010.
2. In respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident that took place on 19.07.2007 involving the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN07-AT-7191 belonging to the claimant and the Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN22-AT-6685 belonging to the first respondent in CMA No.918 of 2010, the claimant has filed the aforesaid OP claiming a total compensation of Rs.56,00,000/- under various heads.
3. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo Car by its driver and as such the second respondent, who is the owner of the Tata Sumo Car and the appellant in CMA No.918 of 2008, as the insurer of the said vehicle, are both jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. According to the claimant, from 19.07.2007 to 11.08.2007 he was treated as an inpatient at Malar Hospitals, Adyar, Chennai 20, and till the date of filing of the petition he was taking treatment as an outpatient. From 19.07.2007, till the date of filing of the petition he was bed-ridden and not able to stand and to do any work. At the time of accident he was employed as a Packing Supervisor with M/s.Devi Marine Food Export Private Limited, No.3/284, Mutukaadu Road, Neelangarai, Chennai 41 and he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.11,000/- Plus other allowances. Because of the multiple fractures and injuries sustained, he is unable to attend to any work and he lost his job and as stated above, a total compensation of Rs.56,00,000/- was sought for under various heads.
4. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle / the second respondent herein remained exparte and did not contest the claim.
5. The appellant / insurer alone contested the claim by filing a counter statement inter-alia contending as follows:-
The accident had not occurred due to any fault on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo Car, but it had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant. Without prejudice to the said contention, it was contended that the claimant was guilty of the contributory negligence. The insurer did not admit injuries, place, date and time of the accident, the age and avocation of the injured and the claimant was put to strict proof of the same. The disability pleaded in the petition was denied and the claimant was put to strict proof of the same. It was contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and made without any basis. Some of the claims made are imaginary and unsustainable. The medical expenses claimed have been denied. It was contended that the claimant was trying to make fortune out of an unfortunate accident by claiming exorbitant amount. The insurer sought for permission to raise all grounds of defence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one Doctor, Dr.Amarnath R.Sowiee, was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked. On the side of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
7. On a consideration of the evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo by its driver and accordingly held the owner of the vehicle, the Tata Sumo Car, as well as the insurer, namely, the appellant in CMA No.918 of 2010 jointly and severally liable to pay a total compensation of Rs.25,40,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and the cost of Rs.56,917/-.
8. As stated above, both the claimant as well as the insurer have filed the above appeals.
9. Pending appeals and after the appeals were heard-in-part, the claimant, who is the appellant in CMA No.1235 of 2010 has filed M.P.No.1 of 2012 in CMA No.1235 of 2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to receive the following documents as additional evidence, namely, "(i) Xerox copy of the Bank of Maharashtra, Neelankarai Branch, Chennai 600 041 passbook.
(ii) Discharge summary issued by Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre, Porur, Chennai 600 116 (03-11-2011 to 05-11-2011).
(iii) Medical bills 27 Nos., for a sum of Rs.10,144.50."
In the affidavit filed in support of M.P.No.1 of 2012 in CMA No.1235 of 2010 it is stated that even from 03.11.2011 to 05.11.2011 the claimant was taking treatment as an inpatient at Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre and screws that were fixed in the right leg ankle were removed and because of that he was bedridden for more than six months and to prove the same, the Discharge Summary issued by Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre is being produced; to prove the subsequent medical expenses incurred by him, the medical bills have been produced as additional evidence; to prove that he was getting salary from his employer, namely M/s.Devi Marine Food Export Private Limited, the Xerox copy of his Bank passbook relating to Bank of Maharashtra, Neelangarai Branch, Chennai 41 has been produced as additional evidence; no reason has been stated as to why the bank passbook was not produced before the Tribunal. But, however, the learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the insurer is not filing any counter and he has no objection for receiving the additional documents and further submitted that the additional documents will not in any way further or advance the case of the claimant.
10. Considering the fact that very employment of the claimant as a Supervisor with M/s.Devi Marine Food Export Private Limited is disputed by the insurer and a contention has been raised that not even the bank passbook has been filed by the claimant and as the receiving of the additional documents, as evidence, is not being opposed, M.P.No.1 of 2012 in CMA No.1235 of 2010 is allowed and the Xerox copy of the bank passbook of the claimant / petitioner in the above petition relating to the account held by him with Bank of Maharashtra, Neelangarai Branch, Chennai 41 is marked as Ex.P=10; the Discharge summary issued by Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre, dated 05.11.2011, is marked as Ex.P-11; the medical bills produced are marked as Ex.P-12 series.
11. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
12. Learned counsel for the insurer / appellant in CMA No.918 of 2010 made the following submissions:-
At the outset, the learned counsel for the insurer submitted that he is not challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo Car by its driver, but he is challenging only the quantum of compensation awarded; totally only for a period of about 20 days, the claimant has taken treatment as an inpatient and there was no fracture in heel and right foot as stated by the Doctor-P.W.2; the permanent disability of 70% fixed by the Doctor and accepted by the Tribunal is wrong; from the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, it cannot be said that he could not attend to his job as a Supervisor; the claim of the claimant that he was employed as Supervisor with M/s.Devi Marine Food Export Private Limited and his claim that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.11,000/- plus allowances have not been proved by acceptable evidence; the claimant has produced only Ex.P-6-salary certificate, but the claimant has not chosen to examine his employer or any authorised person from the company, which has issued Ex.P-6-salary certificate and therefore, Ex.P-6 ought not to have been relied upon by the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that the claimant was employed as a Supervisor and he was getting a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-; if really the claimant was employed as a Supervisor, as claimed by him, and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.11,000/- Plus allowances, he could have produced his income-tax returns and his bank statement, but no such documents have been produced; except the oral evidence of the claimant and Ex.P-6, there is no other material to prove that he was employed as a Supervisor as claimed by him; therefore, according to the learned counsel, the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- fixed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
13. Learned counsel for the insurer further submitted that the 70% disability assessed by P.W.2-Doctor and which is accepted by the Tribunal cannot be sustained since P.W.2 is not the Doctor, who had treated the claimant; no X-rays have been marked to show the nature of the fractures sustained by the claimant and the present condition of the claimant; P.W.2 has stated as if the claimant had sustained fracture in his heel and right foot which is contrary to the discharge summary-Ex.P-3 issued by Malar Hospitals; even assuming that there is 70% disability there is no evidence to show that with this disability he is not in a position to attend to his job as Supervisor; there is absolutely no evidence to show that he has lost his job after the accident; these aspects have not at all been considered by the Tribunal; Ex.P-10 the bank passbook which is received as additional evidence by this Court itself shows that the account was opened on 19.12.2007 and on 29.12.2007 a sum of Rs.8,161/- has been credited to his account which is stated to be miscellaneous credit salary; similarly there are entries relating to the salary up to October 2008 and thereafter there is a credit entry on 29.09.2009 for Rs.2,332/- which is stated to be bonus from M/s.Devi Marine Food Export Private Limited, but thereafter there is no entry in respect of salary by the claimant; therefore, according to the learned counsel, the claim of the claimant that due to the disability suffered by him and due to the injuries caused, he was unable to attend to his job as a Supervisor and he lost his job is totally falsified by his own evidence, namely, Ex.P-10; when it is proved from Ex.P-10 that the claimant had not lost his job and he was attending his job with his employer, namely, M/s.Devi Marine Food Export Private Limited, the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation towards pecuniary loss due to his alleged unemployment; if at all the claimant could get any compensation, it can be only towards 70% disability fixed by the Tribunal, if the same is accepted by this Court at Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability.
14. Learned counsel for the insurer further submitted that in Ex.P-11-discharge summary, dated 03.11.2011 issued by Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre against the column "Brief history of presenting illness", it is stated as follows, "HOPI: History of hit against a heavy object at work over the medical malleolus aspect of distal leg one year back. Ulcer sarted small and was gradually increased for the past one year to attain the current size. Patient was previously undergone intramedullary interlocking nailing for fracture tibia three years ago. Not associated with pain, associated with swelling increases on walking and standing for long time relieved with rest and elevation of leg."
Learned counsel for the insurer submitted that from the above, it is clear that the injury for which the claimant underwent treatment at Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre between 03.11.2011 and 05.11.2011 had been caused by a hit against a heavy object at work over the medial malleolus aspect of distal leg one year back; therefore, the injury ought to have been sustained by the claimant in or about the first week of November 2010 while he was working; this also falsifies the claim of the claimant that he lost his job after the accident; therefore, it is clear that in November 2010 also, the claimant was working.
15. As far as Ex.P-12 is concerned, the learned counsel for the insurer submitted that those medical bills relate to the treatment taken by the claimant from January 2010 and which have nothing to do with the original accident and therefore, according to the learned counsel, on the basis of Ex.P-12, the claimant cannot claim any amount.
16. Learned counsel for the insurer further submitted that the award of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the heading 'pain and suffering to the loss of income to the family members in continuously' is not sustainable; similarly, the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded under the heading 'Mental agony' is also not sustainable; the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded towards the 'Additional transport expenses' is also not sustainable; the awarding of an exorbitant amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards 'Loss of deprivation of sexual life' is not sustainable in the absence of any acceptable proof; the claimant had not examined any sexologist to prove that because of the injuries sustained by him , he cannot indulge in sexual intercourse, therefore the said award of Rs.3,00,000/- has to be set-aside; the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is exorbitant; the Tribunal has simply referred to the case of the claimant, the factum of the claimant being examined as P.W.1 and the Doctor as P.W.2, the percentage of disability fixed by P.W.2, the various headings under which the compensation has been claimed and without even referring to the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the insurer and without discussing the evidence on record has simply passed the award, as stated above; the award, according to the learned counsel, is not sustainable as the same is not a reasoned award.
17. Countering the said submissions, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that without even discussing about the claim made by the claimant towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of earning when a claim has been made for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-; the sum of Rs.10,000/- each awarded under the heads 'Transport expenses' and extra nourishment are on the lower side, when the claim had been made for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.95,000/- respectively; the Tribunal has not considered the continuous treatment i.e., being taken by the claimant and the future treatment the claimant had to take for removal of plates etc., and is not correct in awarding only a sum of Rs.3,23,000/-, but ought to have awarded the entire claim of Rs.5,00,000/-; when there is shortening of two inches in his leg and there was limping the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded towards 'mental agony' is on the lower side, but a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed ought to have been awarded; similarly, the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side; considering the nature of the injuries and fractures suffered by the claimant and the disability faced by the claimant in his day-to-day life, though the disability has been fixed at 70% it should have been assessed at 100% and the loss of earning capacity should have been taken as 100% and accordingly the loss of earning capacity should have been assessed; When as per Ex.P-6-salary certificate, the salary is shown as Rs.11,000/-, the Tribunal is not correct in fixing Rs.10,000/- as the monthly salary; the multiplier of '13' adopted by the Tribunal is not correct, but a higher multiplier should have been adopted; the interest awarded at 7.5% per annum is less, whereas the interest at 9.5% per annum, which is the prevailing rate of interest of banks, should have been awarded.
18. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that Ex.P-10-bank passbook of the claimant proves that he was employed with M/s.Devi Marine Food Export Private Limited, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that the claimant has not proved his employment cannot be accepted; though as per Ex.P-10 he had been employed from December 2007 subsequently from November 2008 he was not employed due to his inability to attend to his job; only because of his limping that he had met with the accident in the first week of November 2010 and therefore he is entitled to claim compensation for the expenses he had to meet for the treatment taken in November 2011 and thereafter; the expenses incurred are proved by Ex.P-12 series medical bills.
19. We have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
20. A perusal of the entries contained in Ex.P-10-bank passbook of the claimant shows that his salaries from December 2007 up to October 2008 have been credited to his account and as per the entries, a sum of Rs.9,161/- has been shown as salary, but after October 2008 there is no entry to show that the salary of the claimant was credited to his account, but there is no evidence explaining the absence of such entry. From the fact that there was no entry after October 2008, it cannot be concluded that thereafter he was not employed with his employer, M/s.Devi Marine Food Export Private Limited. The accident had occurred on 19.07.2007 and from 01.12.2007, he should have been attending to his job as otherwise he would not have been paid the salary for December 2007 and thereafter, as stated above, up to October 2008, he had been receiving his salary. Therefore, the contention of the claimant that because of the 70% permanent disability suffered by him, he had lost his job as a Supervisor cannot be accepted. Though the employer, who issued Ex.P-6 salary certificate or his authorised representative, has not been examined to prove Ex.P-6, since the entries in Ex.P-10 bank passbook supports the claim of the claimant, we are of the considered view that the claimant as on the date of the accident was employed with M/s.Devi Marine Food Export Private Limited, but between 19.07.2007 up to 30.11.2007 he was taking treatment as inpatient and outpatient at various hospitals and he could not have attended to his job and therefore during this period, he has suffered loss of income. Therefore, for a period of four months, towards loss of income at Rs.9,000/- per month, he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.36,000/- (Rs.9,000/- x 4). The award of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'Pain and suffering to the loss of income to the family members in continuously attending to the claimant' is set-aside.
21. Since we have held that the claimant has not lost his job and actually he was attending to his job from the beginning of December 2007, the question of applying the multiplier method and assessing his loss of earning power does not arise. Since the Tribunal basing reliance on the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.P-9 disability certificate and the evidence of the Doctor-P.W.2, though without any discussion, whatsoever, has fixed the permanent disability at 70%, we do not want to interfere with the said fixation of disability at 70%. For 70% permanent disability, the claimant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-, namely, Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. Therefore, the award of the sum of Rs.10,92,000/- towards 'Permanent disability and loss of earning power' is set-aside.
22. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that because of the 70% disability suffered by the claimant and because of the shortening of one of the legs by two inches there is limping and he could not squat in the floor and he could not walk without stick, the Tribunal ought to have awarded sufficient compensation towards the loss of amenities is concerned, we are of the considered view that the claimant is entitled to get a reasonable compensation towards the loss of amenities. P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that because of the disability suffered by him the claimant cannot either squat or walk without the support of walker and in his day-to-day life he would be facing many such difficulties and hence the sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of amenities'.
23. As per the Full Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in 2010 ACJ 697 (Jayakodi v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,), wherein basing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1985 ACJ 75 (SC) (N.Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation) the Apex Court has held that nothing is awardable under the head of shock and mental agony of parents or other legal representatives. Therefore the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards mental agony and torture due to multiple fractures and complete immobility is set-aside.
24. The sum of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded under the heading 'Additional transport expenses as the petitioner is unable to drive any vehicle' is set-aside as the same is not based on any acceptable evidence. Similarly the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded under the heading 'Loss of deprivation of sexual life' cannot be sustained as the claimant has not proved by examining any sexologist that the claimant cannot indulge in sexual intercourse. The sum of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded towards 'pain and suffering', in our considered view, is on the higher side, but taking into consideration of the fact that the claimant had suffered multiple fractures and injuries and had been treated as an inpatient for twenty days and was continuing to take treatment as an outpatient, a sum of Rs.75,000/- will be a reasonable compensation to be payable and therefore under this heading Rs.75,000/- is awarded.
25. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the entire claim of Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal instead of Rs.3,23,000/- is concerned, when admittedly the claimant has produced medical bills only to the tune of Rs.3,23,000/-, the claimant is entitled to get only that amount and therefore, the Tribunal is right in awarding the sum of Rs.3,23,000/- towards medical expenses. Though the learned counsel for the insurer submitted that there are duplications in the claim, he is unable to substantiate the claim. Hence the sum of Rs.3,23,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is confirmed.
26. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the sums of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards the 'Transport expenses', 'Extra nourishment' and 'Damage to vehicle, cloth and watch' respectively are on the lower side is concerned, in the absence of any documentary proof to sustain the said contention, the said amounts awarded by the Tribunal are confirmed.
27. Thus the claimant is entitled to the total compensation as under:-
Transport Expenses - Rs. 10,000/- Extra Nourishment Charges - Rs. 10,000/- Damage to vehicle, cloth and watch - Rs. 5,000/- Medical expenses - Rs.3,23,000/- Loss of income for four months - Rs. 36,000/- Compensation for pain and suffering - Rs. 75,000/- 70% permanent disability - Rs.1,40,000/- Loss of amenities of life - Rs. 50,000/- ----------------- Total - Rs.6,49,000/- -----------------
which is rounded off to Rs.6,50,000/-. The interest of 7.5% awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
28. Before parting with, we want to point out that it has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza: not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation 1999 ACJ 10 (SC) and State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur (2003 ACJ 1800).
29. The aforesaid principles has been totally lost sight off by the Tribunal in this case. In this case, the Tribunal has failed to discharge its judicial duty to waive the various factors and has totally failed to discuss the evidence on record and has not at all referred to the contentions of the learned counsel for the insurer. There is absolutely no reasoning whatsoever to support the various amounts awarded as compensation under various heads. The Tribunal has simply accepted what has been stated in the petition and in the affidavit by P.W.1 without even considering the fact that Ex.P-6 ought not to have been relied upon in the absence of oral evidence by the maker of the same or by some authorised representative of the employer or other corroborative evidence.
30. As pointed out above, when no compensation is payable towards mental agony, the Tribunal without aware of the law laid down by the Apex Court as early as in 1985 has awarded a huge amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Similarly without any evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of deprivation of sexual life, the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is on the higher side. The Tribunal has forgotten the fact that the insurer is the custodian of the public funds and under the guise of awarding just compensation, the Tribunal cannot pass an award awarding a huge amount without any basis and which cannot be called as just and reasonable and it cannot be a bonanza and a source of profit to the claimant.
31. In our considered view, the award passed by the Tribunal cannot be considered to be a reasoned award and the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal appears to be not acquainted with the relevant case laws on this subject. Her appreciation of evidence, discussion and the conclusions reached are totally not satisfactory. Hence, we direct the Registry to place this order before My Lord, The Hon 'ble The Chief Justice, for making appropriate entry in her annual confidential report.
32. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by the claimant in CMA No.1235 of 2010 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the insurer in CMA No.918 of 2010 is partly allowed. However there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected MP No.1 of 2010 is closed.
33. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the insurer submitted that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been deposited to the credit of MACTC OP No.3587 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai and therefore submitted that the insurer / appellant in CMA No.918 of 2010, who is also the second respondent in CMA No.1235 of 2010, is permitted to withdraw the excess amount deposited.
34. In view of the same, the balance amount, after satisfying the award passed herein, is permitted to be withdrawn by the Insurance Company / the appellant in CMA No.918 of 2010. If the claimant has not withdrawn the amount or has only withdrawn a part of the amount, he is entitled to withdraw the balance amount.
srk To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai