Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Selvi S.Rithu on 4 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MAD 2208
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgement Reserved on : 04..11..2020
Judgement Pronounced on : 04..12..2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1006 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.6304 of 2020
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Cheeranveli Building,
NH 220, Kanjirapally Post,
Kottayam District,
Kerala State-686 507.
... Appellant
-Versus-
1.Selvi S.Rithu
2.Thiru.Trijo Alex,
Thevacad,
Vazhichery,
Alappuzha, Kerala.
3.Tmt.Akkamma Alex
[Respondents 2 and 3 set ex parte before the Tribunal]
... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 07.03.2019 made in
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.263 of 2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief
Judicial Magistrate), Tirupur.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1 of 29
C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri for R1
R2 and R3 - Notice Dispensed
with
JUDGEMENT
Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur, as exorbitant, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which is the 2nd respondent before the tribunal, has come forward with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant will herein be referred to as the insurer, the 1st respondent herein will be referred to as the claimant while the respondents 2 and 3 will be referred to respectively as the driver and insured.
3. The case of the claimant before the tribunal is that, on 18.01.2015 at about 03.30 p.m. while she was traveling in a Maruthi Car bearing Regn. No. TN 43 B 3305 along with her parents on Mettupalayam-Ooty Ghat Road, near http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 First Hairpin bend, a Innova car bearing Regn. No. KL 04 Y 7277 belonging to the 3rd respondent and insured with the appellant, which came in the opposite direction, driven by 2nd respondent herein in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car in which, she was traveling as a result of which she sustained grievous head injury. She was immediately taken to Government Hospital at Mettupalayam, after first aid treatment, she was shifted to KG Hospital at Coimbatore where she had undergone surgery. She was taking treatment from 18.01.2015 to 30.01.2015 as in patient. She was again admitted at the very same Hospital for another surgery and was taken treatment from 25.03.2015 to 02.04.2015. At the time of accident, she was hardly 18 years old and she was doing her I Year B.D.S., course at K.S.R. Dental Science and Research College at Tiruchengode. Due to the head injury sustained in the accident, she could not pursue her studies effectively. She has been still suffering from head ache due to the impact of the head injury and there is no coordination between her hands and legs. Her right eye also got injured in the accident. The surgeries conducted for the head injury left a permanent scar on her forehead which will have a serious impact on her marital prospects. She had to spend huge sum towards medical expenses and she has to spend further sum towards her future treatment also. Thus, claiming http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the insured and the insurer, the claimant filed the claim petition.
4. The insured and the driver of the Innova Car were remained absent before the tribunal and therefore, both of them were set ex parte. The insurer alone contested the claim petition inter alia contending that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent of the driving of the car in which the claimant was traveling. Therefore, they are not liable to compensate the claimant and the claimant cannot have any claim against them. Without prejudice their contentions, the insurer disputed the total amount compensation claimed in the petition as excessive and speculative.
5. Before the tribunal, in order to prove her case, the claimant examined herself as P.W1 and marked as many as 9 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9. Neither any witnesses was examined nor any document was marked on the side of the appellant. Pending trial of the claim petition, the claimant was referred for a medical opinion from the Medical Board as to the percentage of disability suffered by her on account of the injuries sustained in the road accident. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Government http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 Hospital at Tiruppur was marked as Ex.C.1.
6. The tribunal after considering the materials placed on record came to a conclusion that the accident was taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Innova Car belonging to 3rd respondent herein and as the car was insured with the appellant, the tribunal held that appellant is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, indisputably, the claimant had undergone surgery twice for the head injury. Even though the medical board had assessed the disability suffered by the claimant at 25%, considering the nature of the injury suffered by the claimant and also considering the fact that the claimant, at the time of accident, was hardly 18 years old and she could not pursue her B.D.S. course effectively, the tribunal concluded that she suffers 100% disability as the injuries suffered by her would definitely affect not only her future earning capacity but her marital prospects as well. Therefore, under the head of permanent disability, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- apart from compensation under various heads as detailed below:-
(i) Pecuniary Damages (In Rupees)
Disability : 5,00,000
[Rs.5,000 for each
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5 of 29
C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020
percentage of disability -
Rs.5,000 X 100 ]
Attender Charges : 10,000
Medical Bills : 8,10,459
Nourishments : 50,000
(a) 14,20,459
Total
(ii) Non-Pecuniary
Damages
Loss of Marital Prospects : 5,00,000
Pain and Sufferings : 6,00,000
[Rs.3,00,000 each for pain
and sufferings]
Loss of Amenities : 3,00,000
Loss of Expectation of : 3,00,000
Life
(b) : 17,00,000
Total
Grand Total (a) + (b) 31,20,459
Challenging the award of compensation as exorbitant, the insurer of the Innova Car is before this court with the instant appeal.
7. The 2nd respondent, who was the driver, and the 3rd respondent, who is the owner of the Innova car, were remaining absent and they were set ex parte before the tribunal itself. Therefore, the insurer did not press the claim http://www.judis.nic.in Page 6 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 as against the respondents 2 and 3 herein in this appeal.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the 1st respondent and also perused the records carefully.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant (insurer) would submit that, no doubt, that the claimant was a student doing her I years B.D.S. course at the time of accident and had undergone surgery twice for the head injury, however, after the treatment, she had recovered completely and she could very well discharge her activities normally as before. In fact, the claimant herself admitted before the court in her cross examination that she was doing her internship in the same college after completing her bachelor's degree in medicine. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the claimant did not suffer any permanent disability. The claimant neither examined any doctor nor produced any medical evidence to show that has to continue the treatment life long. When the claimant was referred to a medical board for the assessment of the disability, the medical board, on assessing the nature of the injury as well as the impact of the injury had opined that the claimant suffers 25% permanent disability. But, the tribunal without properly considering the http://www.judis.nic.in Page 7 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 available evidence on its own mechanically fixed the disability at 100% and concluded that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000 for each percentage of injury and thus, awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards disability which is not proper.
10. The learned counsel would further submit that insofar as non pecuniary damages are concerned, when the tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of marital prospects and a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings, the award of Rs.3,00,000/- granted by the tribunal towards loss of amenities is nothing but a duplication to the loss of marital prospects. The tribunal, therefore, ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant would furthermore submit that the tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of expectation of life without any valid and acceptable evidence whatsoever. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in absence of any evidence to show that on account of the injury sustained by her in the accident, expectation of her life has been reduced and her future prospects has also been http://www.judis.nic.in Page 8 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 affected, except the oral evidence of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant which requires interference at the hands of this court.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent (claimant) submitted that the claimant, who was an young girl, hardly in her teenage years at the time of accident and was doing her I Year B.D.S. course, suffered a serious head injury and sustained comminuted depressed fracture of frontal bone and comminuted and displaced fracture of right maxilla and right zygomatic buttress. fracture besides subarachnoid hemorrage -Anterior falx cerebri, subdural haematoma and a contusion over bifrontal lobe and had undergone surgery twice. The surgeries left a permanent scar on her forehead which would affect her marital prospects. The evidence of the claimant would be sufficient enough to show that due to the impact of the injuries sustained by her, she could not continue her studies as before. That apart, the claimant was suffering from reduced vision due to the injury sustained on her right eye and she is still having problem in her right eye. There is no co-ordination between her hands and legs. Further, the claimant often suffers from severe head ache and loss of memory, therefore, she has to continue her treatment life long. Due http://www.judis.nic.in Page 9 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 to the injuries sustained in the road accident, she is unable to lead a full life happily. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the tribunal rightly awarded a total compensation of Rs.31,20,459/- which is just and reasonable one and the same could not said to be excessive or exorbitant. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, this appeal deserves only to be dismissed.
13. Admittedly, the claimant girl was 18 years old at the time of accident and she was doing her I year B.D.S. course. She had suffered serious head injury and had undergone surgery twice. The surgeries left a permanent scar on her forehead. Unfortunately, no doctor was examined to explain to the court the nature of the injuries sustained and the surgeries conducted on her. However, from a careful perusal of the would certificate (Ex.P.1) and Discharge Summary (Ex.P.2) which were, issued by a private hospital, viz., K.G. Hospital at Coimbatore, where the claimant had taken treatment, it could be seen that claimant had suffered severe head injuries. Ex.P.1-Wound Certificate describes the injuries said to have been suffered by the claimant as follows:-
Findings (or) injuries (on initial
assessments)
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 10 of 29
C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020
1. Midfrontal depressed fracture with dural and brain laceration
2. Fracture of right maxilla
3. Fracture of right zygoma
4. Fracture of right greater wing of sphenoid and medial wall of both orbits
5. Laceration 8 x 3 x 2 cm over the right frontal region, both depth
6. Sutured wound 2 cm long over the right cheek
7. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm over both legs.
Investigation:
X Ray right elbow, X Ray right leg, X Ray left leg-no fracture CT Scan Head - Parenchymal contusions in bilateral frontal lobes. Minimal subdural hematoma along the anterior falx cerebri. Minimal subarachnoid hemorrhage in bifrontal and left frontal region. Depressed fracture frontal bone with fracture fragment displaced into the parenchyma in frontal lobe. Fracture anterior and posterior wall of frontal sinuses and glabella. Fracture anterior, lateral walls of right maxillary sinus. Fracture Right Greater wing of sphenoid and bilateral medial wall of orbit. Right http://www.judis.nic.in Page 11 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 maxillary, bifrontal, ethmoid, right sphenoid hemosinus."
14. Ex.P.2-Discharge summary (series) narrate the services and the supports rendered to the claimant, the point at which the claimant's hospital care ended. The petitioner was taking treatment twice from 18.01.2015 to 30.01.2015 and thereafter from 25.03.2015 to 02.04.2015. The first surgery was conducted on 19.01.2015 and the second one was on 28.01.2015. The operation record narrates as follows:-
"On examination, her Glasgow coma scale 15/15. Vitals stable. 8 x 3 x 2 cm laceration over right frontal region. 2 x 1 cm sutured wound in right cheek and 1 x 1 cm abrasion over both legs. Orthopedician opinion sought. Clinically no long bone injury. Imaging showed mid frontal depressed fracture with SDH and SAH with dural and brain laceration an d CSF leak for which excision, duroplasty and general anaesthesia was done by nerosurgical team. Comminuted fracture and displaced fracture note in right maxilla and right zygomatic buttress for which open reduction and internal fixation had been planned later. She was treated with good antibotics coverage http://www.judis.nic.in Page 12 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 nutritional support. Phisotherary and good nursing care, got improved well and she is shifted with stable haemodynamics."
The opinion of the doctor which read as follows:-
"Neurosurgeon's opinion: (18.01.2015)
Dr.M.Natarajan: History as recorded. On
examination, the patient is conscious, alert and talking. Pupils are equal and reactive to light.
Able to counter fingers at 1 meter distance (bed side). Obeys request. Moveslimbs. Lacerated wound over the midline forehead brain mattter oozing out. CT brain midfrontal depressed fracture bilateral frontal contusion.
Pneumocephalus. Advised: depressed fragment excision, wound debridement. Injection Lasix 1 cc IV b.i.d.
Ortho Surgeon's opinion: (18.01.2015) Dr.A.Sakthivel: Alleged history of road traffic accident while traveling in four wheeler around 3:30 p.m. near Mettupalayam, Kothagiri road details not known. Took first aid at Mettupalayam GH and referred here for further care. On examination, the patient is conscious and oriented. Blood pressure 110/60 mmHg and http://www.judis.nic.in Page 13 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 pulse rate 96 per minute. Respiratory rate 18 per minute. Afebrile. Lacerated wound size 10 x 2 x 1 cm present over forehead exposing skull. 2 cm sutured wound over right cheek. Abrasion over both legs middle third. Pelvic compression test negative. Chest compression test negative. No cervical spine tenderness. Moving all four limbs normally. Right elbow no swelling / deformity.
Tenderness over lateral condyle elbow movements normal. Both legs: Abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm present over middle third anterior aspect of leg. Tenderness present around the abrasion.
X-Ray right elbow no fracture. X-Ray
15. From a careful perusal of the second discharge summary, it could be seen that on diagnosis of the claimant, deficit of mid frontal craniectomy bone was found and therefore, a titanium mesh cranioplasty was done in the second surgery.
16. During trial, the petitioner was referred to a medical board for the assessment of the disability suffered by her where she was assessed to have suffered disability to an extent of 25% by the Medical Board, Tirupur District. The disability certificate (Ex.C.1) describes as follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 14 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 "She was diagnosed with contusion bifrontal lobe, subdural haematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage - Anterior falx cerebri, comminuted depressed fracture frontal bone, comminuted and displaced fracture of right maxilla and right zygomatic buttress.
She has undergone following procedure:
Depressed fracture extension/duraplasty done: ORIF of fracture facial bone.
She was referred to get Neuro Surgeon's Opinion from Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. As per his opinion at present she has 20% disability.
Her disability is Partial Permanent and assessed as Twenty Five percentage (25%)."
17. The disability certificate (Ex.C.1) would show that the when claimant was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore to get opinion from a Neurosurgeon and on examining her, the Neurosurgeon had opined that the claimant suffered 20% disability. Thereafter, based on the opinion given by the Neurosurgeon, the Tirupur District Medical Board had simply assessed the disability at 25% as partial permanent. However, P.W.1 http://www.judis.nic.in Page 15 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 in her evidence before the court had stated that after surgery and discharge, she continued to take further treatment, still suffers from memory loss occasionally, and from severe headache, dizziness and shivering in the hands. She had further stated that there is no coordination between the hands and legs. She She had further stated that she could not able continue her studies effectively and her eye vision also got reduced due to the injuries sustained on her right eye. The tribunal after having considered the demeanor of the claimant (P.W.1) has held that the forehead of the claimant bears a long scar. The evidence of the claimant in regard to the post trauma stress and the scar due to the surgery was not seriously challenged by the insurer in the cross examination. The medical board did not take into account the impact on account of the injuries having regard to the nature of the injuries while assessing the disability and it had simply gone by the opinion of the Neurosurgeon, Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore and fixed the disability at 25%. The tribunal, upon considering the available medical records and the demeanor of the claimant did conclude that the petitioner suffers 100% disability on account of the injuries.
18. While determining the quantum of compensation, the tribunal http://www.judis.nic.in Page 16 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 should keep in mind, the future sufferings of the injured person including the incapacitation or reduction in the use of limbs as before due to the injury sustained. Further while assessing the non pecuniary damages, the tribunal should consider the physical shock and pain and sufferings undergone by the injured and also the likelihood of agonies in future. Apart from the above, the tribunal should also consider the loss of amenities and also the damages on account of inconvenience, hardship, frustration, etc., especially, in a case, where the injured was a girl in her teenage at the time of accident and the best part of her life is yet to come and also the facial disfigurement, caused due to the injuries and its impact on the marital prospects of the injured.
19. In R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical http://www.judis.nic.in Page 17 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future;
(ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened;
(iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.”
20. In K.Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 CC 274, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while determining quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the http://www.judis.nic.in Page 18 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of the tribunal or a court has to be broad based. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of “just compensation” should be inhered.”
21. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down broad guidelines for award of compensation under different heads in case of personal injury. The relevant portion of the judgement reads as follows:-
"6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 19 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of http://www.judis.nic.in Page 20 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."
22. Recently in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the claimant should be compensated for the loss suffered by them. However, the assessment of damages should not be conservative or so liberal to make it a bounty to the claimant and it must be a just compensation, which reads as follows:-
as follows:-
"6. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or http://www.judis.nic.in Page 21 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages."
23. Coming to instant case, as discussed above, the injured is a young girl, aged about 18 years at the time of accident and was doing her I year B.D.S. course. She suffered serious head injuries and undergone surgery twice. There are medical records to support the same. Even though in the trial, it was elicited that she had completed her degree course and doing her internship, the evidence available on record shows that she is still suffering due to the head injuries and she is not able to do her normal activities and duties as before. An injured person, like the claimant in the instant case, should not only be compensated for the physical injury and should be compensated for the loss which she suffered as a result of such injury, more specifically, she should be compensated for her inability to enjoy the normal amenities which she would have enjoyed but for the injuries. Admittedly, there is a disfigurement in her face as the injury left a permanent scar on her forehead. This would definitely affect her marriage prospects. http://www.judis.nic.in Page 22 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020
24. So far as the disability is concerned, even though the medical board had assessed the disability at 25%, it was based only on the opinion of the Neurosurgeon. The other disabilities being faced by the claimant have not been taken into account. However, on considering the totality of the circumstances, the finding of the tribunal that the claimant suffers disability at 100% cannot be sustained. At any rate, this court is of the view that the disability could be assessed at 50%. Therefore, the compensation towards partial permanent disability would be calculated as Rs.5,000 x 50 = 2,50,000/-. Therefore, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- could be awarded towards partial permanent disability.
25. So far as the attender charges is concerned, the claimant was admitted as inpatient on two different spells and was bedridden for more than six months. Therefore, awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards attender charges as against the award of Rs.10,000/- grated by the tribunal would be fair and adequate.
26. For medical expenses, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,10,459/- http://www.judis.nic.in Page 23 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 which is not in dispute and therefore, the same stand upheld.
27. Insofar as nutritious food and transport expenses are concerned, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- each which appear to be just and fair and the same do not require any interference.
28. Coming to the non pecuniary damages, the tribunal having granted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects, granted another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, which, in the considered opinion of this court, is not proper and the same is nothing but a duplication. The loss of amenities includes various matters like not able work, run, or sit and also loss of marriage prospects. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation towards loss of amenities and marriage prospects, but, she is not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of amenities separately.
29. So far as the loss of expectation of life is concerned, there is no acceptable evidence to show that on account of injury, the normal longevity of the claimant was shortened. In the absence of any such evidence, the tribunal http://www.judis.nic.in Page 24 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 ought not to have granted compensation under that head. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled for any amount under the head of loss of expectation of life.
30. As far as the pain and suffering is concerned, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal which is is on the higher side. Therefore, claimant is entitled to a sum of R.3,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
31. Considering the nature of the injuries and the evidence of the claimant coupled with the medical records it is found that the claimant has to continue her treatment and therefore, this court is of the view that awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses would be just and proper.
32. In view of the foregoing discussions, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads require interference as detailed below:-
Serial Description Amount Amount Award
Number awarded awarded by this confirmed or
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 25 of 29
C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020
by the Court enhanced or
Tribunal (Rs.) granted or
(Rs.) reduced
(Rs.)
1. Partial Permanent 5,00,000 2,50,000 Reduced
Disability
2. Attender Charges 10,000 50,000 Enhanced
3. Medical Expenses 8,10,459 8,10,459 Confirmed
4. Nutritious Food 50,000 50,000 Confirmed
5. Transport Expenses 50,000 50,000 Confirmed
6. Loss of Marriage 5,00,000 6,00,000 Enhanced
Prospects [for loss of
amenities and
marriage
prospects]
7. Pain and Sufferings 6,00,000 3,00,000 Reduced
8. Loss of Amenities 3,00,000 - No amount
Granted
9. Loss of Expectation of 3,00,000 - No amount
Life Granted
10. Future Medical - 1,00,000 Granted
Treatment
Total 31,20,459 22,10,459 Reduced by
[Rounded up to Rs.9,09,459
Rs.22,11,000]
In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation of Rs.31,20,459/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced to Rs.22,11,000/-. The appellant shall pay the compensation directed above together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim http://www.judis.nic.in Page 26 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 petition till the date of deposit. The appellant is directed to deposit the award amount as directed above along with interest and the costs proportionately as ordered by the tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st respondent is entitled for refund of court fees, if any, as per rules. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.
04..12..2020 kmk http://www.judis.nic.in Page 27 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 V.BHARATHIDASAN.J., After the judgement has been pronounced, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company brought to the notice of this court that the appellant had already deposited the entire award amount together with interest pursuant to the order of the tribunal and therefore, he prayed this court to order for refund of the excess award amount to the appellant.
In view of the above, the tribunal is directed to refund the excess award amount, if any, to the appellant-Insurance Company together with proportionate interest. This order shall form part of the original order.
04..12..2020
Index : yes.
Internet : yes.
Speaking order
kmk
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tirupur.
2.The Section Officer, VR-Section, High Court, Madras. http://www.judis.nic.in Page 28 of 29 C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020 V.BHARATHIDASAN.J., kmk Pre Delivery Judgement in C.M.A.No.1006 of 2020
04..12..2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Page 29 of 29