United India Insurance Co., Ltd., v. R. John Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.02.2024 C O R A M THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and C.M.P.No.2186 of 2024 United India Insurance Co., Limited, No.23/81, Nainiappa Naicken Street, Chennai 3.
...Appellant Vs 1.R.John Kumar 2.Basetty Babu.R ... Respondents Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award made in MCOP.No.768 of 2013 dated 17.07.2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellant : Ms.K.Saraswathi For Respondent : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj for R1 1/8
JUDGMENT
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed to enhance the compensation awarded vide the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2013 in MCOP.No.768 of 2013.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that on 21.01.2012 while the appellant was riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-05-Y-7411 at Kolathur Redhills Road, another Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-04-AC-7132 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, due to which, he had sustained grievous injuries. Considering all the aspects the Tribunal had awarded the following compensation:
S.No Particulars Compensation (Rs.) Loss of Income 48,000 Transportation 20,000 Extra Nourishment 10,000 Medical Expenses 73,600 Future Medical Expenses 30,000 Pain and Sufferings 75,000 Disability 1,20,000 Total 3,76,600 2/8
3. He would contend that in the present case, the claimant had sustained Comminuted intra articular condylar fracture right tibia, avulsion injury of dorsum right foot fracture dislocation ATP foot of right middle finger, which is not severe in nature and and he was only treated as in-patient in the Hospital for 96 days, for which the medical reimbursement was also awarded by the Tribunal. Further, he would contend that for the aforesaid injuries, the Doctor, who examined the injured had determined 50% as disability, which is totally unreasonable and thereafter, by non-application of mind, the Tribunal had also taken 30% as functional disability, which is on higher side. Hence, he requests this Court to reduce the same.
4. He would also contend that the Tribunal had awarded loss of income of a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the claimant for a period of 6 months, which is on higher side. Hence, he requests this Court to reduce the same for a period of 3 months. 3/8
5. Today, the claimant had appeared before this Court. The learned counsel for the claimant would suggest this Court to re-fix 20% as functional disability and also requests this Court to confirm the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the other heads.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
7. In the present case, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the disability determined by the Doctor, on the face of it, appears to be unreasonable, since in many number of cases, this Court had only taken 15% as functional disability for these types of injuries. In such view of the matter, considering the nature of injuries, this Court is inclined to fix 20% as functional disability and award a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage as compensation. Accordingly, the disability would be calculated as follows: Rs.3,000/- (amount per percentage) * 20% (functional disability) = Rs.60,000/- 4/8
8. As far as the loss of income is concerned, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to award the compensation for a period of 3 months instead of 6 months. Accordingly, the same would be calculated as follows: Rs.8,000/- (income) * 3 (months) = Rs.24,000/-
9. Further, it appears that the compensation awarded towards the "Pain and Sufferings" and "Transportation" for a sum of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.20,000/- appears to be on the higher side. Hence, the same are reduced to a sum of Rs.25,000/- and 7,500/- respectively. With regard to all the other heads, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable. Hence, the same stands confirmed.
10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:
S.No Particulars Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court (Rs.) (Rs.) Loss of Income 48,000 24,000 Transportation 20,000 7,500 Extra Nourishment 10,000 10,000 5/8
S.No Particulars Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court (Rs.) (Rs.) Medical Expenses 73,600 73,600 Future Medical Expenses 30,000 30,000 Pain and Sufferings 75,000 25,000 Disability 1,20,000 60,000 Total 3,76,600 2,30,100
11. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is modified as a sum of Rs.2,30,100/-. Accordingly, the award amount stands reduced from a sum of Rs.3,76,600/- to Rs.2,30,100/-. In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal stands confirmed.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that they had already deposited the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal and the same has also withdrawn by the claimant. In such view of the matter, the claimant is directed to deposit the balance amount after deducting a sum of Rs.2,30,100/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the 6/8
credit of MCOP.No.768 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court) Chennai. Thereafter, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the claimant. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 05.02.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order nsa To:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
7/8
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.
nsa & C.M.P.No.2186 of 2024 05.02.2024 8/8