IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 05.01.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE S.VIMALA C.M.A.No.1569 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sri Krishna Plaza, No.1, Nachiappa Street, Erode District - 638 001. ... Appellant Vs.
1. K.Parthiban
2. P.S.Natarajan ... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel (for R1) No appearance (for R2) J U D G M E N T The appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012 dated 05.10.2013 on http://www.judis.nic.in the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.
2.The claimant is an auto owner-cum-driver, earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 13.02.2012. He filed a claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.6,48,730/-, which is under challenge in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the medical expenses awarded at Rs.2,52,430/- is excessive and that the Tribunal ought not to have accepted the disablement at 35%.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the appellant, it is quite necessary to look into the nature of injuries, suffered by the claimant and the impact of disability upon the claimant along with the nature of job that the claimant so doing.
6. Admittedly, the claimant is a driver by profession. He has suffered fracture of bones in the right leg. The Doctor has certified that it is very difficult to use his right hand and right leg, for the purpose of the job he was doing. To show that the claimant is a driver, driving license has also been produced. There is evidence to show that the claimant was aged only 30 years. In order to substantiate the fact that the claimant has suffered permanent disability, Dr.C.Sivalingam was examined as P.W.2 and the Tribunal has discussed the details of injury and the details of permanent disability in paragraph No.11 of the order passed by the Tribunal and it is relevant to extract hereunder:
“11) kDjhuu; jugg py; kDjhuUf;F Vwg l;l fhaj;ij epU:gpf;Fk; tifapy; kUjJtu;
jpU/C.rptyp';fk; k/rh/2 Mf tprhhpff gglL sshu;.
mtu; jdJ rhl;rpaj;jpy; kDjhuUf;F tyJ fhy.;
tyJ fhy; bjhil. tyJ fhy; Klo . fQqff hy.
gFjpfspy; rijfs; ,isjJ k; kw;Wk; tYjj pwd;
Fiwe;Jk; typa[ld; Toa K:lL mirtfs ghjpf;fg;gl;l epiyapy; fhzggl;lhu; vd;Wk;. nkw;go tpgj;jpy; mtUf;F Vwg l;l Open crush injury Right http://www.judis.nic.in proximal Leg, Fracture of III B Lateral Condyle, Fracture Right Femur and Communited Tibial Condyle fha';fSf;F nfhit f';fh kUj;Jtkidapy; cs; nehahspahf nruf fgg lL;
rpfpr;ir mspf;fg;gl;lJ vd;Wk; mtUf;F jhd;
Ez;fjpu;glk; vLj;J ghpnrhjid braJ ghhj ;jjpy;
oiutu; ntiy braJ te;jjhf Twpdhu; vdWk;
vdnt kDjhuUf;F Vwg l;l epue;ju Cdk; 50% vd;Wk;
Ez;fjpu; glk; k/rh/M/10 vd;Wk; Cdr; rhdwpjH k/rh/M/11 vd;Wk; rhlr pak; mspjJ s;shu;/“ The sum and substance of the evidence is that he has suffered fracture in the right leg itself in three places. There has been loss of flesh and tightening of muscles leading to restriction in the movement. Implant has been used during surgery. Plastic surgery has also been performed. Even though multiplier method has been adopted, the percentage of loss of earning capacity has been taken 35%, though the physical disablement is 50% and the functional disablement as driver may be 100%. Therefore, the award cannot be said to be excessive.
7. The Tribunal has considered the loss of earning capacity, adopting multiplier of 17, taking monthly income at Rs.4,500/- x 12 x 17 x 35% = Rs.3,21,300/-. So far as medical expenses are concerned, it has been awarded at Rs.2,52,430/-, which is based on medical bills, which has been filed as Ex.P4. The appellant Insurance Company fails to substantiate http://www.judis.nic.in before this Court, how the compensation towards medical expenses is excessive, when it is supported by medical bills. In all other aspects, the amount of compensation awarded does not warrant interference and the appeal is dismissed.
8. The Appellant/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest and costs as awarded by the claims Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the bank accounts of the claimant through RTGS within a period of two weeks. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No gya To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
05.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in S.VIMALA, J.
gya C.M.A.No.1569 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 05.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in