THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA C.M.A.No.SR27404 of 2006 and M.P.No.2 of 2007 The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 11-19,20, Government Arts College Road, Coimbatore District. ... Appellant versus
1. Marappan (died)
2. A.Balasubramaniam
3. K.Rajammal
4. Thangammal (died)
5. M.Subramaniam
6. M.Sampath
7. Thanga Pushpam
8. M.Manokaran
9. Chitradevi ... Respondents (R4 was the wife of the deceased and she died during the pendency of the appeal, R5 to R9 have been impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased as per the order of this Court dated 21.02.2017 made in M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2010) (R2 and R3 remained ex part before the Tribunal) Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.04.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.318 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge) at Gobichettipalayam.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Ramesh Babu For Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran for R5 to R9
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation.
2. The claimant, Marappan, an agriculturist, aged 65 years, earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- p.m. met with an accident on 07.10.2002 and sustained injuries, in respect of which, he filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.318 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge) at Gobichettipalayam, claiming compensation of Rs.4,54,000/-.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.2,05,000/-, the break up details of which read as under:
Total - Rs. 2,05,000/-
Challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is no scope for awarding compensation on account of loss of earning capacity, when there is no proof to show that the petitioner has sustained permanent disablement. Hence, the compensation has to be reduced.
5. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal reveals that the injured examined himself as P.W.1, wherein, he deposed that due to the accident, he sustained grievous injuries below the knee on the right leg, apart from the injuries all over the body, due to which, he could not walk freely and do agricultural work in his own land. He further deposed that by doing agricultural work, he earned a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- per year and due to his inability, he deputed a person to do the agricultural work and gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- per year, as salary to that person. Considering the said fact, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.10,000/-.
6. The Doctor, who was examined as P.W.2, had issued the disability certificate certifying the disability at 30%. At the time of accident, the injured was aged 64 years. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the nature of the job, the Tribunal, by fixing the monthly loss of income in respect of 30% disability at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and adopting the multiplier of 5, has quantified the loss of income at Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 12 x 5), Awarding Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses based on the bills, Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment, the compensation has been quantified at Rs.2,05,000/-.
7. On a careful perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal, taking into consideration the age of the injured, the nature of injuries and nature of work, and considering the materials available before it, has awarded compensation under the head loss of earning capacity. The said compensation awarded is based on materials available on record and appreciation of the same in proper perspective and, therefore, the compensation awarded towards loss of earning capacity cannot be said to be excessive. Moreover, it is also relevant to point out that loss of enjoyment of amenities has not been considered at all and disablement compensation has also not been awarded. Under such circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded cannot be said to be excessive and the same is liable to be confirmed.
8. For the above said reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the SR stage itself. The award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
9. It is represented that during the pendency of the appeal, the claimant died, and petitions were filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record as Respondents 4 to 9. During the pendency of those petitions, the proposed 4th respondent, who is the wife of the deceased and the mother of proposed respondents 5 to 9 also died. Therefore, the proposed respondents 5 to 9, who are the legal representatives of the deceased and the 4th respondent were brought on record as respondents 5 to 9. In such circumstances, this Court directs that the compensation awarded shall be payable equally to respondents 5 to 9.
10. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, less the amount, if any, already deposited, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of claim petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The respondents 5 to 9 are entitled to an equal share in the compensation. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall transfer the amount directly to the bank account of Respondents 5 to 9 equally, through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
21.02.2017 Index : Yes / No. ogy/GLN To 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge), Gobichettipalayam.
Dr.S.VIMALA, J.
ogy/GLN C.M.A.No.SR27404 of 2006 and M.P.No.2 of 2007 21.02.2017