Partly allowed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Malliga

Madras HC10 Apr 2013CMA/3044/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal in part, modifying the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award. The court struck out amounts for loss of earning and future medicals but increased awards for attendant charges, loss of income, transportation, and miscellaneous expenses.

What did the court decide?

The award was modified to Rs.3,24,296/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.; appeal allowed in part.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Malliga — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.04.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

¶5

C.M.A.No.3044 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008

¶6

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Branch Manager, No.88-F, Bypass Road, Dharmapuri.

¶7

Dharmapuri. .. Appellant/2^nd Respondent in MCOP Vs. 1.Malliga .. 1^st Respondent/claimant in MCOP 2.P.Alliraj .. 2^nd Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶8

(The 2^nd Respondent remained exparte in the lower court and notice dispensed with for him)

¶9

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 29.06.2007 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.272 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Dharmapuri.

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran for R1

¶11

The Insurance Company questions the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶12

The road accident was on 11.7.2003. The injured/first respondent was then 40 years old. An agricultural coolie. PW2 determined her disability at 65%. The Tribunal totally awarded her Rs.3,50,295/-. It includes Rs.1,30,000/- towards disability, Rs.30,000/- towards future medial expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earning power.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that after having awarded Rs.1,30,000/- towards disability, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earning power. He further contended that in the absence of evidence, awarding Rs.30,000/- towards future medial expenses will not arise. It is also contended that the accident took place on 11.07.2003, but the F.I.R was lodged only on 18.07.2003. The evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and Ex.R2, Investigation Report discloses that the insured vehicle is not involved in the accident.

¶15

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant contended that what was awarded itself is less and no compensation has been awarded for Attendant charges and loss of income during treatment and for extra nourishment expenses very less amount has been granted.

¶16

I have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned award of the Tribunal.

¶17

It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained extensive injuries in the road accident. As to the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident, PW1 has spoken in extenso and she has been elaborately cross examined.

¶18

RWs.1 & 2 are not eyewitnesses. Ex.R1 report is based on

¶19

hearsay evidence. So it cannot be accepted in the place of substantive evidence adduced by PW1 before the Tribunal.

¶20

The unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R will play a significant role in criminal cases, but not so in road accident cases, unless some material aspects are established. In this case, no doubt, there is few days of delay in lodging the F.I.R by PW1. Such delay is not uncommon in road accident cases for the reason that first the injured will be very much interested in getting treatment. Sometimes immediately police may visit the hospital and record the complaint. Sometimes, the injured after recovering from the trauma of the accident, will lodge the F.I.R for prosecuting the erring driver and for filing a compensation case. In the circumstances, we agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the insured vehicle has been involved in this road accident.

¶21

We accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal, after having awarded Rs.1,30,000/towards disability, awarding of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earning power will not arise.

¶22

There is no evidence to show that the injured has to undergo further treatment. In the circumstances, awarding of Rs.30,000/towards future medical expenses also will not arise.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

But, towards certain items of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded lesser amount and for certain items, no compensation has been awarded.

¶25

The injured suffered extensive injuries. He would have been hospitalized for a considerable period and even after discharge, his movement would have been restricted for a considerable period. In the circumstances, we award him Rs.15,000/- towards Attendant charges. Towards loss of income, we award Rs.10,000/-. Towards extra nourishment charges only Rs.3,000/- has been awarded. It is increased to Rs.5,000/-. Towards transportation charges only Rs.4,000/- has been awarded. It is increased to Rs.8,000/-. Under miscellaneous expenses Rs.2,000/- has been awarded. These are expenses which could not be substantiated by evidence. It is increased to Rs.5,000/-.

¶26

In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part. The award of the Tribunal is modified to Rs.3,24,296/- with interest @ 7.5 p.a from the date of filing the original claim petition till deposit. The amount awarded by the Tribunal has already been deposited. The first respondent is permitted to withdraw the said modified amount, less amount, if any already withdrawn. The amount over and above the modified amount with corresponding interest shall be refunded to the appellant. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶28

jvm

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

¶31

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Dharmapuri District.

¶32

2.The Section officer

¶33

V.R.Section highcourt, madras-104

¶34

+1 cc to Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy sr.20911 +1 cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran sr.21143

¶35

C.M.A.No.3044 of 2008
and M.P.No.1 of 2008
bs(co)
aa 02/05/2013

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Malliga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Malliga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Leethiyal Vs S.Ramakrishnan

Nagarajan Vs Sivakumar

M/S.National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Minor Murugan

Kanagaraj, Vs the Sub - Inspector of Police

Naveenkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Ravindran, Vs the Inspector of Police