Royal Sundaram Alliance v. R. Sivaranjini
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.08.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN C.M.A. No.1830 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.13437 of 2016 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Motor Third Pary Claims Cell, No.21, Pattullos Road, Chennai - 600 002.
... Appellant/2nd Respondent -vs1.R.Sivaranjani .. 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.Vidhya Sagar Women's College, G.S.T.Road, Vedhanarayanapuram, Chengalpattur - 603 111.
3.A.Shankar 4.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Office, No.547, Gandhi Road, 1st Floor, Kancheepuram - 631 501.
... Respondents 2 to 4/ Respondents 1,3 & 4 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.243 of 2011, dated 30.06.2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Raghavan For Respondents: R1 and R3 - No appearance Mr.K.Eswara Rao for M/s.Sampath Kumar and Associates for R2 Mr.J.Chandran for R4
J U D G M E N T
[Judgment of the Court made by R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.] The challenge in this appeal is to the award of a sum of Rs.13,53,746/- made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu in MCOP.No.243 of 2011.
2. The said Original Petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident that occurred on 02.04.2011. The claimant/ 1st respondent was a first year student in B.B.A at the time of the accident. According to her, while she was travelling as a passenger in the bus belonging to the college at Chengalpattu, bearing registration No.TN-60-H-7677, the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationery lorry bearing registration No.TN-21-K-4387. As a result of the accident, the 1st respondent sustained grievous injuries and she was taken to the Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital where first aid was given and she was referred to MIOT Hospital at Chennai, where she was treated as an in-patient for about 18 days. Contending that because of the injuries suffered by her, she has sustained permanent disability, resulting in monetary loss, the claimant sought for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. The claim was resisted by the appellant Insurance Company contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The claim of the 1st respondent that an FIR was registered against the driver of the bus was also denied by the appellant Insurance Company. Though, the owner of the lorry and the insurer of the lorry were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4, it is seen that the owner of the lorry remained exparte.
4. The Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence on record, concluded that the contents of the FIR as well as the evidence discloses that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the 2nd respondent college insured with the appellant Insurance Company. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation.
5. On the quantum, the Tribunal, fixed the permanent disability at 40% and taking the notional income of the injured at Rs.15,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure and on applying a multiplier of '18', it awarded a
sum of Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss of earning capacity,. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects, Rs.2,47,500/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.2,000/- towards damage to clothes and watch. Thus, the Tribunal arrive at a total compensation of Rs.13,53,746/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant Insurance Company is before us by way of this appeal.
6. We have heard Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.Eswara Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel for the 4th respondent Insurance Company and the respondents 1 and 3 though served have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.
7. Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company would contend that the award of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to loss of earning power is highly excessive, he would contend that the injured claimant was the student of first year B.B.A and it is in evidence that she had completed her Educational qualification after the accident and the Doctor has assessed the disability only at 30% and therefore the Tribunal was not right in assessing the disability at 40% and awarding a sum of Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss of income.
8. We find considerable force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company. It is seen from the records, particularly Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 that the education of the 1st respondent was not affected by the accident, she had completed the course and she has also obtained a degree in Bachelor of Business Administration. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.10,000/- added future prospects at Rs.5,000/- after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses arrived at monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. No doubt true, the 1st respondent/ claimant had suffered grievous injuries in the form of fractures but there is no evidence on record to show that her career prospects were affected because of the injuries suffered. On the other hand there is evidence to show that her education was not affected and she went on the complete the course which she was pursuing at the time of the accident.
9. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the award of the Tribunal of Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss of earning
capacity is excessive. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and the same also appears to be on the higher side, we are therefore of the considered opinion that the award of the Tribunal needs to be modified and it is modified as follows:- The monthly income of the injured is taken at Rs.7,500/- and adding 40% towards future prospects the monthly income comes to Rs.10,500/-, the 1st respondent was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident, therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be '18', thus worked (10,500 x 12 x 18) the annual loss of income would be Rs.22,68,000/-. In this we have to deduct 50% towards her personal expenses she being a spinster. So the annual loss of income is Rs.11,34,000/-.
The disability assessed is 30% therefore the compensation that could be awarded under the loss of earning power would be 30% of Rs.11,34,000/- = Rs.3,40,200/- and the same is rounded of to Rs.3,41,000/-. The claimant has suffered a disability of 30% she would be entitled to a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards permanent disability (3000 x 30). The sum of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings is reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-. The award under other heads made by the Tribunal viz., Rs.50,000/- towards of loss of marriage prospects, Rs.2,47,746/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.2,000/- towards damage to clothes and watch are confirmed. Thus the total compensation would be Rs.9,70,746/-. Award towards Amount Loss of earning power : Rs. 3,41,000/- Permanent disability : Rs.
90,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of Marriage Prospects : Rs. 50,000/- Medical Expenses : Rs. 2,47,746/- Transportation : Rs. 20,000/- Extra nourishment : Rs. 20,000/- Damage to clothes and watch : Rs. 2,000/- Total : Rs. 9,70,746/- and the same is rounded of to Rs.9,71,000/- with interest at 7.5% and proportionate costs.
10. In fine, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the award of the Tribunal granting Rs.9,71,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and proportionate costs. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of six (6)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and on such deposit the claimant would be entitled to withdraw the entire amount so deposited. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar dsa To 1.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
2.
The Section Officer, High Court, Madras.
3.
R.Sivaranjani, D/o.Ramalingam NO.40-A, Thattan Malai Street, Bignatham, Chengalpattu-603 001.
+1cc to Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, S.R.No.60253 +1cc to M/s.Sampath Kumar and Associates, S.R.No.60419 C.M.A. No.1830 of 2016 GP(Co) CS/13/12/2018