Rajakumari v. Venkatesan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CMA.(MD)No.547 of 2024 Rajakumari ... Appellant Vs.
1.Venkatesan 2.United India Insurance Company Limited, Bharathidasan Salai, Cantonment, Trichy.
3.Chettinad College of Engineering & Technology, NH 67, Karur-Trichy Highways, Puliyur Post, Karur.
4.Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bharathidasan Salai, Cantonment, Trichy.
... Respondents Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the award amount in MCOP.No.806 of 2015 on the file of the MACT/Special Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli dated 30.11.2021.
1/10
For Appellant : Mr.R.Jenifer Bibin For R4 : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran R1 & R3-Ex-Parte CMA.(MD)No.721 of 2022 M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Bharathidasan Salai, Cantonment, Trichy.
... Appellant Vs.
1.Rajakumari 2.Venkatesan 3.M/s.Chettinad College of Engineering & Technology, represented through its Principal, NH 67, Karur-Trichy Highways, Puliyur Post, Karur.
4.M/S.Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Bharathidasan Salai, Cantonment, Trichy.
... Respondents (Cause title is accepted vide Court order dated 13.07.2022 made in CMP. (MD)No.5892 of 2022 in CMA.SR.(MD)No.23183 of 2022) 2/10
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree passed in MCOP.No.806 of 2015 dated 30.11.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special Sub Court, Thiruchirapalli and praying to set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran For R1 : Mr.R.Jenifer Bibin R2 & R4-Dispensed with COMMON JUDGMENT These two appeals arise from an award passed in the claim petition in MCOP.No.806 of 2015 filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special Sub Court, Thiruchirapalli, seeking compensation for the injury suffered by the claimant.
2.CMA.(MD)No.721 of 2022 has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The injured claimant has preferred appeal in CMA.(MD)No.547 of 2024 seeking enhancement of the compensation.
3/10
3.The claimants filed a claim petition stating that on 31.03.2015, while she was travelling in the college bus, a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN68 J 4944, which is insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, came in the opposite direction and caused a collision, as a result of which, she sustained grievous injuries.
4.The Insurance Company filed a counter stating that the accident did not take place due to the negligence of driver of the insured lorry and that in any case, the compensation claimed was excessive. 5.The Insurance Company, in which, the college bus was insured, has also filed a counter stating that the accident took place only due to the driver of the lorry.
6.Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. The appellant/Insurance Company neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents. The disability certificate was marked as Court document in Ex.C1. The acceptance letter and the salary certificate of the claimant were also marked as X.1 to X.3. 4/10
7.The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and hence, directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation of Rs.13,51,405/-. 8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is not warranted as no evidence has been let in by the claimant to prove the functional disability and even after the accident, she had worked in the College she had resigned the job on her own.
9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that even assuming that the claimant had worked for some time in the College, the fact remains that she was unable to move her hands because of the severe injury and hence, the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is reasonable and that the compensation awarded under the other heads requires enhancement.
10.This Court has given consideration to the rival submissions made on either side and perused the evidence on record. 5/10
11.The only question involved in both the appeals is "whether the Tribunal had fixed a just and reasonable compensation?" 12.Though the Insurance company had raised grounds that the finding of the Tribunal as regards the negligence, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company fairly submitted that the appellant has restricted its challenge to the quantum of compensation alone. Therefore, notice to the other respondents is dispensed with.
13.The claimant had examined herself as P.W.1 and marked disability certificate as Court document. The evidence of P.W.1 would show that even after accident, she had attended the College, for about 1 1⁄2 years and thereafter, due to personal reasons, she had resigned her job. The disability certificate produced on behalf of the claimant does not show that the claimant suffered any functional disability. The claimant has not produced any other evidence to prove that she has suffered functional disability. It is well settled that unless functional disability is established multiplier method cannot be adopted. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier method in granting compensation under the head of disability. 6/10
14.The accident is of the year 2015. This Court, in Kamal Vs. Venkatesan in CMA.No.1586 of 2023 awarded Rs.5,000/- per percentage of the disability for an accident which took place in the year 2015, based on the decision of the Division Bench, reported in 2022(2)TNMAC 97 (DB) in Dr.Prafulla Vs. Sajeebai Balakrishnan and others. The claimant has established that she had suffered 50% disability on the basis of Ex.C.1. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to get Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 50) under the head of disability. The claimant had suffered fracture in both hands, which is revealed from the medical records produced on the side of the claimant. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the other heads pain and sufferings and loss of amenity would be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively.
15.The award under the head of loss of income can be enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and the award under the head of attendant charges can be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. The award passed under the other heads is confirmed. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified as follows:- 7/10
Description Amount awarded by the Tribunal Sl.
N o Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed, enhanced or granted 1 For Disability Rs.8,57,000/- Rs.2,50,000/- Modified 2 Pain and Sufferings Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Enhanced 3 Loss of Income Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Enhanced 4 Attendant Charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Enhanced 5 Damages for Cloths and Other Articles Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/- Confirmed 6 For Extra Nourishment Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/- Confirmed 7 Transport Charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Confirmed 8 Medical Expenses Rs.4,18,405/- Rs.4,18,405/- Confirmed 9 Loss of Amenity Rs.10,000/- Rs.75,000/- Enhanced Total Rs.13,51,405/- Rs.8,95,405/- Modified 16.The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.8,95,405/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Four Hundred and Five only) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization (excluding the period of dismissal for default if any) and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8/10
18.On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the aforesaid amount together with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. The claimant is directed to pay the necessary Court Fee, if any, on the enhanced amount.
19.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA.(MD) No.547 of 2024 is dismissed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA. (MD)No.721 of 2022 is allowed. No costs.
22.08.2024 Index: Yes/ No NCC: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order gns 9/10
SUNDER MOHAN , J.
gns To MACT/Special Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli.
CMA.(MD)Nos.547 of 2024 and 22.08.2024 10/10