Branch Manager v. Ramesh Mirtha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.M.A.Nos.1285 to 1287 of 2017 Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Tambaram Branch, No.4, Muthulinga Reddy Street, Wet Tambaram, Chennai-2.
.. Appellants in all the appeals Vs.
1. Ramesh Mirtha
2. Varadharajan
3. Kaliyaperumal ....1st respondent in CMA.Nos.1285 to 1287 of 2017
2. Gnanaprakasam ....2nd respondent in CMA.Nos.1285 to 1287 of 2017 Common prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment, dated 26.02.2013 in MCOP. Nos.124, 126 and 128 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Ariyalur.
For Appellant :
Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy for all the cases For Respondents :
Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran R1 in CMA.No.1285 of 2017 R1 - No appearance in CMA.No.1286 of 2017
R1 - NRN in CMA. No.1287 of 2017 R2 - ex-parte in all the cases COMMON JUDGMENT The appeal has been filed by the appellant/insurance company seeking quantum of compensation in the Judgment and decree, dated 26.02.2013 in MCOP. Nos.124, 126 and 128 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Ariyalur.
.
2. It is the case of the claimants that on 11.04.2010, at about 9.30 pm. The respectclaimants, who are the first respondent, in all the appeals, were travelling in a van bearing Reg. No.TN 22 BZ 4869 from Chennai to Kumbakonam Main Road, near Meensurutti Market bridge, at the time, a lorry driven by its driver, which was insured with the appellant, had colluded with the van, due to which, the claimants along with other persons sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, the claimants filed separate claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation.
3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have examined 16 witnesses and marked 40 documents, On the side of the insurance company, there is no
witness examined and no documents were marked. After adjudication, the Tribunal has awarded huge compensation to the claimants without any basis.
4. For questioning the quantum of compensation, the appellantsinsurance company has filed these appeals before this Court. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company contended that the Tribunal, without any basis, awarded huge compensation in favour of the claimants. Therefore, this court may interfere with the same and award compensation as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme court and prayed for allowing these appeals.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant in CMA.No.1285 of 2017 contended that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the accident had happened. The Tribunal has rightly passed the award, which cannot be interfered with. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the appeals.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the first
respondent in CMA.No.1285 of 2017 and also perused the materials available on record. There is no representation for the other respondents.
8. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant is the insurance company and the first respondent is the claimants in all the cases. The case of the appellant is that on 11.04.2010 at about 9.30 p.m. The claimants and some others were travelling in a van, driven by its driver, from Chennai to Kumbakonam in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry which was came in a opposite direction. Due to the accident, the claimants were sustained injuries. It is the main grievance of the appellant that the Tribunal has awarded huge sum in favour of the claimants without any basis.
9. On perusal of the award passed in MCOP.no.124 of 2010, it is seen that the Tribunal erred in awarding excessive sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the fracture of hip bone and head injury, which is erroneous. The doctor has assessed the disability at 60% as partial permanent disability and the accident had happened in the year 2010. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.2000/- per percentage, which is very low and the same has to be increased at Rs.3000/- per percentage. Further, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards
dental medical expenses and eye treatment awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant, which are not entitled to. Further, the claimant is not entitled for future medical expenses.
In view of the above, this Court modifies the following order in respect of CMA.No.1285 of 2017:
Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Modified Award Amount (Rs.) For partial permanent disability 1,20,000/- (60%x2000) 1,80,000/- (60% x 3000) Dental treatment 1,00,000 ....
Eye treatment 1,00,000 .....
Medical expenses 3,41,000 3,41,000 Bone treatment 9,000 9,000 Transportation 20,000 20,000 Medicine expenses 1,00,000 .....
Medical treatment 50,000 50,000 Extra nourishment 30,000 30,000 Pain and sufferings 30,000 30,000 Future medicine exp.
1,00,000 50,000 Total 10,00,000 7,10,000
10. On perusal of the award passed in MCOP.no.126 of 2010, the doctor has assessed the disability at 20% as partial permanent disability and the accident had happened in the year 2010. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.2000/- per percentage, which is very low and the same has to be increased at Rs.3000/- per percentage. Further, a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses for private hospital and tablet charges awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant, which are not entitled to and the same has to be rejected. Further, the claimant is not entitled for future medical expenses.
In view of the above, this Court modifies the following order in respect of CMA.No.1286 of 2017:
Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Modified Award Amount (Rs.) For partial permanent disability 48,000 72,000 Medical exp. In private hospital 50,000 ....
Tablet expenses 60,000 ....
Extra nourishment 30,000 30,000 transportation 10,000 10,000 Pain and sufferings 30,000 30,000
Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Modified Award Amount (Rs.) Future medical exp.
62,000 ......
Total 2,50,000 1,42,000
11. On perusal of the award passed in MCOP.no.126 of 2010, it is seen that the Tribunal erred in awarding excessive sum of Rs.3,46,000/- for the fracture of tibia in the right leg by awarding excessive compensation, which is erroneous. The doctor has assessed the disability at 26% as partial permanent disability and the accident had happened in the year 2010. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.2000/- per percentage, which is very low and the same has to be increased at Rs.3000/- per percentage. Further, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses for private hospital and tablet charges awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant, which are not entitled to and the same has to be rejected. Further, the claimant is not entitled for future medical expenses.
In view of the above, this Court modifies the following order in respect of CMA.No.1287 of 2017:
Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Modified Award Amount (Rs.) For partial permanent disability 52,000 78,000 Medical exp. In private hospital 1,50,000 ......
Tablet expenses 40,000 ......
Extra nourishment 20,000 20,000 transportation 20,000 20,000 Pain and sufferings 30,000 30,000 Future medical exp.
34,000 ............
Total 3,46,000 1,48,000
12. In view of the above discussion and observation, the appeals are allowed and the awards passed by the Tribunal are modified and this court passes the following orders:
(i) in respect of CMA.No. 1285 of 2017 is concerned, the appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.7,10,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs and ten thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; (ii) in respect of CMA.No. 1286 of 2017 is concerned, the appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- (Rupees One thousand and forty two thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; (i) in respect of CMA.No. 1287 of 2017 is concerned, the appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,48,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty eight thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and (iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any already withdrawn.
13. In the result, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. No costs.
13.10.2023 rli Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes To The the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Ariyalur.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
Rli C.M.A.Nos.1285 to 1287 of 2017 13.10.2023