Madras High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs N.Balaganesan on 5 May, 2010
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: R.Banumathi, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:05.05.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.M.A.No.690 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Post Box No.1877, No.8, Esplanade, Chennai-600 108. ... Appellant Vs. 1.N.Balaganesan 2.E.S.Balakrishna ... Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed against the Award dated 31.01.2006 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1098 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court, Krishnagiri). For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan For M/s.P.D.Audikesavalu For 1st Respondent : Mr.M.Selvam For 2nd Respondent : No appearance JUDGMENT
M.VENUGOPAL,J.
The Appellant/Second Respondent has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Award dated 31.01.2006 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1098 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., Sub Judge, Krishnagiri.
2.The Tribunal viz., Sub Judge, Krishnagiri, while passing orders in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1098 of 2003 on 31.01.2006, had inter alia opined that the First Respondent/Claimant is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.19,09,000/- etc. and passed an Award accordingly directing the Appellant/Insurance Company (Second Respondent) to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of passing of the Award.
3.Before the Tribunal viz., Sub Judge, Krishnagiri, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.23 were marked. On the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company, no one was examined and no documents were marked.
4.Aggrieved against the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal, the Appellant/Insurance Company had projected this appeal before this Court.
5.According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company, the Tribunal had heard in passing an excessive Award of Rs.19,09,000/- etc., which is thoroughly unjustified based on the facts and circumstances of the case and as a matter of fact, the award of compensation under numerous heads were erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of law for the simple reason that the same is not supported by any relevant evidence or objective standards.
6.It is the further contention on behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Company that the Tribunal committed an act of grave impropriety in granting the entire amount of compensation as claimed by the First Respondent/Claimant under the caption of Extra Nourishment, Partial Loss of Income, Transportation Expenses and Damage to Personal Belonging and Clothing for the mere asking without reference to any evidence to substantiate the assessment thereof.
7.That apart, a plea is put forward on the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards Medical Expenses is not supported by bills for reimbursement, and the assessment of Rs.2,00,000/- towards Future Medical Expenses and Rs.1,50,000/- towards Pain and Suffering and Rs.1,00,000/- towards Loss of Future Earning Capacity were without any acceptable or proper legal basis.
8.Lastly, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company contends that the grant of interest at 9% per annum when the same was not expressly provided in the fair order of the award is illegal and it is a well settled Principle of Law that a Decree has to be drawn up only in accordance with the terms of the Judgment/Award as the case may be.
9.In view of the above, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant prays for allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in the interest of justice.
10.In regard to the plea of Negligence, the Claims Tribunal on the basis of the Tempo Driver admitting the offence before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri had come to a resultant conclusion that he was squarely responsible for the happening of the occurrence and answered accordingly.
11.In regard to the Quantum of Compensation to be awarded, the Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,09,000/- etc. and further directed the Appellant/ Insurance Company to deposit the said amount within a period of two months.
12.The First Respondent/Claimant in his claim petition had claimed a total compensation of Rs.47,34,000/- and restricted the same to Rs.23,00,000/-.
13.The break-up figure to the said Claim is as follows:
a. Loss of Earnings : Rs.
b. Partial Loss of Earnings : Rs.1,00,000.00
c. Transport to Hospital : Rs. 75,000.00
d. Extra Nourishment : Rs.1,00,000.00
e. Damages to Clothing & Articles : Rs. 9,000.00
f. Others i. Medical Expenses : Rs.5,00,000.00
Future Medical expenses : Rs.4,00,000.00
Loss of expenses for relatives
to stay in the Hospital to look
after the petitioner/deceased : Rs. 50,000.00
g. Compensation for Pain & Suffering
and Mental Agony. : Rs.5,00,000.00
h. Compensation for continuing or
as Permanent Disability : Rs.5,00,000.00
i. Compensation for Loss of Future
Earning Power : Rs.25,00,000.00
-----------------
Total Rs.47,34,000.00
-----------------
14.The Tribunal had awarded for the Grievous Injuries sustained by the First Respondent/Claimant a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. Towards Partial Loss of Income, it had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards Medical Expenses, it had awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. For Future Medical Expenses, it had granted a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Towards Extra Nourishment Expenses, it had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards Transport Expenses, it had granted a sum of Rs.75,000/-. For Damage to Articles and Clothing, it had awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/-. Towards Pain and Suffering, it had awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. For Permanent Disability, it had awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. For Future Income Earning Capacity, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards Relatives Expense when P.W.1/First Respondent (Claimant) was under treatment at the Hospital, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Thus, in all, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.19,09,000/-.
15.Expatiating his submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal in its Award had merely extracted the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 (Doctors) and P.W.1 (First Respondent/Claimant) and indeed, there is no reasoning ascribed by the Tribunal in awarding different amount of compensation under various heads and in short, while awarding a compensation amount under different heads, the outline of process of reasoning is conspicuously absent and therefore, the Award under challenge is not a Fair, Reasonable and a Just Award and at best it can be described as an unreasoned one.
16.It is to be noted that an unreasoned Award may be just, but may not appear to be so to the individual affected. Per contra, a reasoned Award will have the appearance of Justice and an application of mind by a Court of Law/Tribunal.
17.The object of passing a reasoned Award is to project an impression that the rival contentions of the parties are taken note of by the Tribunal or by a Court of Law.
18.It is well settled that a Court of Law/Tribunal will have to determine the points for consideration, the decision thereon and the reasons assigned for arriving at a particular decision. The main object is to raise the points for determination, which is meant to clear up the pleading and focus the attention of the Tribunal and of the litigants on the specific and divergent contentions which crop up for rumination. In short, the Award of the Tribunal/Court of Law must reflect that the Tribunal had appreciated the issues involved in the subject matter, applied its mind and most importantly decided on considering the evidence on record. Merely awarding a particular sum under a certain head will not suffice. In short, the Tribunal must take up for consideration all the points that arise for determination in a Claims Petition pertaining to the compensation.
19.Be that as it may, as far as the present case is concerned, the Tribunal though it had extracted the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and had passed a total Award of Rs.19,09,000/- in favour of the First Respondent/Claimant, payable by the Appellant/second respondent (Insurance Company), we are of the considered view that there is no forensic skill of the Tribunal in analysing the pros and cons of the evidence of the witnesses and the documents available on record when it took into consideration the 45% Permanent Disability of the First Respondent/Claimants right leg etc. and in short, the Tribunal, without any rhyme or reason and in the absence of positive proof, had awarded the various sums under the following heads:
Grievous Injuries : Rs.7,00,000/- Partial Loss of Income : Rs.1,00,000/- Medical Expenses : Rs.3,00,000/- Future Medical Expenses : Rs.2,00,000/- Extra Nourishment : Rs.1,00,000/- Transport expenses : Rs. 75,000/- Damage to Articles and Clothing : Rs. 9,000/- Pain and Suffering : Rs.1,50,000/- Permanent Disability : Rs.1,50,000/- Future Loss of Earning Capacity : Rs.1,00,000/- Relatives Attendant Expenses : Rs. 25,000/- --------------- Total Rs.19,09,000/- ---------------
20.Also the Award under challenge is silent about the grant of interest. But the Decree refers to the grant of interest at 9% per annum. It is not out of place for this Court to point out that the Decree must be inconsonance with the Award. But in the instant case, it is not so in our considered opinion.
21.Therefore, on going through the Award passed by the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the Award suffers from an outline of process of reasoning when it had granted a certain amount under a particular head and needless to say that the Award passed by the Tribunal in the matter in issue is certainly not a Just and Fair one and this is especially so, to the Appellant/Insurance Company being an affected party and as such, we are let with no other option but to set aside the Award without going into the merits of the matter in the interest of Justice and allow the Appeal filed by the Appellant.
22.Earlier, this Court, on 24.03.2007 in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in C.M.A.No.690 of 2007, has passed an order of Interim Stay on conditions that:
(i) a Demand Draft for 25% of the award amount together with the interest accrued thereon till the date of filing of the appeal shall be taken in favour of the Respondent/Claimant by the Appellant/Petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be disbursed by the Tribunal directly to the Respondent/Claimant within ten days from the date of handing over of the Demand Draft;
(ii) after such payment, another 25% of the award amount together with interest, which inclusive of statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made at the time of filing of appeal, shall be deposited with the Tribunal to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1098 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Krishnagiri, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be reinvested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years, renewable thereafter, pending disposal of the appeals."
23.It is represented on behalf of the First Respondent/ Claimant that a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- was deposited and out of the said sum of Rs.12,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- was withdrawn by the First Respondent/Claimant. It is made clear that the Tribunal shall take into account of the withdrawal of Rs.6,00,000/- made by the First Respondent/Claimant while passing an Award.
24.In the result, the Appeal is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Award passed by the Tribunal dated 31.01.2006 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1098 of 2003 is hereby set aside for the reasons assigned by this Court in this appeal. The matter is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal viz., Sub Judge, Krishnagiri for fresh determination of the matter by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal viz., Sub Judge, Krishnagiri is directed to pass a reasoned, speaking Award by framing the necessary points for determination, to spell out its decision thereon, and also to assign reasons for arriving at a particular decision one way or other in the light of well settled principles of law by providing adequate opportunities to parties in the manner known to law. The Tribunal is directed to pass a fresh Award within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance before this Court without fail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
sgl To
1.The Sub Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.
2.The Sub Assistant Registrar, (To Monitor and Report) High Court (Judicial) Chennai