w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Puducherry v/s Ulagaratchagan & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U10200WB1906GOI001713

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1917PLC002781

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CORPORATION PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909PB1942PTC000480

Company & Directors' Information:- I.N. INSURANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67200DL1994PTC062554

Company & Directors' Information:- INSURANCE OF INDIA LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67200WB1936PLC008634

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1950PLC009913

    C.M.A. No. 3350 of 2019 & CMP No. 19525 of 2019

    Decided On, 11 September 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

    For the Appellant: N.B. Surekha, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, N.U. Prasanna, T. Saikrishnan, Advocates, R2, No Appearance.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018 passed in MACTOP.No.231 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Subordinate Court, Puducherry.)1. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition on hand is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in MACTOP No.231 of 2013 dated 01.10.2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Subordinate Court, Puducherry.2. The National Insurance Company is the appellant, who filed this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal has awarded excess compensation under various heads and a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was granted towards permanent disability and the amount granted for pain and suffering is also excessive. This apart, the first respondent/claimant is working in the Fisheries Department and there is no loss of income. Thus, compensation of loss of income is improper and loss of expectation of life is also questioned by the learned counsel for the appellant. At the outset, it is contended that the over all compensation granted by the Tribunal is exorbitant and not in commensuration with the gravity of the injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant.4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent/claimant disputed the contention by stating that the first respondent/claimant is totally a disabled person. Already, he suffered polio attack in his left leg and in the very same leg, he sustained injuries. Thus, grievousness of the injuries and the fracture sustained by the first respondent/claimant incapacitated him from performing his normal and routine duties. Considering the grievousness of the injuries, the Tribunal awarded the compensation and there is no excessive award and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.5. The accident occurred on 31.07.2008 at about 11.15 hours, opposite to Botanical Garden Main Gate, Old bus stand, Kamaraj Salai, Puducherry. The Station House Officer, Traffic Police, registered a case in Crime No.613 of 2008. The first respondent/claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries in his jaws, fracture in teeth, hip bone fracture, with post polio residual paralysis left lower limb compound fracture left femur, femur neck which resulted in permanent disablement. He had taken treatment as inpatient and thereafter, continued the treatment as outpatient. Thereafter, the claim petition was filed. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties. As far as the negligence is concerned, the Tribunal based on the FIR-Ex.P1 document, arrived a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.PY-01-Q-3457 belonging to one Mr.Rajendiran, the first respondent in the claim petition. Thus, the appellant/Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation to the first respondent/claimant.6. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is relevant to consider the report of the Medical Board, Ex.X1. The doctor fixed the permanent disability at 48% . The findings in this regard are extracted hereunder:“11. Ex.P46 is the Disability Certificate of the petitioner issued by PW2 and on perusal of the same, Doctor opined the extent of permanent disability at 48%. To prove the disability sustained by him, the petitioner was referred to Medical Board, as per the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the said report dated 14.07.2017 was marked as Ex.X1 on 11.08.2017. In Ex.X1, the Medical Board has assessed the disability of the petitioner at 48% and opined “Tronchanteric fracture left femur - fracture united post polio residual paralysis – left’. CW1 deposed in his chief examination that, “TAMIL”. In Ex.X1, Medical Board Authorities have not divided the percentage of disability of the petitioner that how much percentage of disability the petitioner has sustained due to post polio residual paralysis and how much percentage of disability he sustained in the accident. Therefore, on careful analysis of the evidences of PW2 and CW1 and Medical Board Certificate, this Tribunal assessed the petitioner’s disabilities as 40% for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Therefore, for 40% disability, as derived by Medical Board as per Ex.X1, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded as compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- for each percentage of disability considering the cost of living and as per the rule of the Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 2013(2) TNMAC 583.7. A perusal of the entire findings, with regard to the disability, this Court is of the considered opinion that the first respondent/claimant has suffered not only grievous injuries, but also fracture in the left leg which was already affected due to polio attack. This being the factum, the disability is permanent, but the Tribunal has not adopted the multiplier. However, the Tribunal has granted higher compensation under the head of pain and suffering and loss of expectation of life. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- granted by the Tribunal for pain a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nd suffering is merely on the higher side. But, it is a fit case for adopting multiplier. However, the Tribunal has not adopted the multiplier, but awarded compensation under various other heads at Rs.6,69,656/-. Thus, adjusting the compensation is unwarranted.8. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.231 of 2013 dated 01.10.2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional Subordinate Court, Puducherry stands confirmed and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
O R