Allowed

M.Sundari Muthukrishnan v. Sutherland Global Services

Madras HC20 Oct 2014CMA/2139/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 2,08,800 to Rs. 3,00,000 in a motor accident case, considering a 40% disability rating, future treatment needs, and notional income, while directing the insurance company to deposit the amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000; second respondent directed to deposit within four weeks; interest at 7.5% per annum.

M.Sundari Muthukrishnan Vs Sutherland Global Services — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.10.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

C.M.A. No.2139 of 2012

¶6

M. Sundari Muthukrishnan

¶7

..Appellant/Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Sutherland Global Services Pvt. Ltd., No.383, Velachery Tambaram Main Road, Vijayanagaram, Chennai – 600 061.

¶10

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., No.6, Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. ..Respondents/Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2011 passed in M.C.O.P. NO. 345 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

¶12

Aggrieved by the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dated 21.11.2011, in M.C.O.P. No. 345 of 2009, the claimant has come forward with the above appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 2,08,800/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing till the date of deposit.

¶13

The claim petition was filed by the appellant herein claiming compensation of Rs.7 lakhs for the grievous injuries sustained by her, in the accident that took place 15.09.2007, at about 11.30 a.m., when a car bearing Registration No. TN-09-AR-3497

¶14

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

¶15

hit the two-wheeler, in which the appellant travelled as a pillion rider. The Tribunal, on analysing the materials on record, awarded Rs.2,08,800/- as compensation with interest as stated above.

¶16

The grievance of the claimant/appellant is that when the Doctor, who was examined as P.W.2, had assessed the disability suffered by the claimant at 40%, the Tribunal had fixed the same at 35%. Further, according to the appellant, taking note of the actual expenses incurred by her towards transportation and medical expenses; that the appellant, who met with the accident on 15.09.2007, was hospitalised and discharged on 02.10.2007 and that she was under subsequent treatment, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and the same requires to be enhanced.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the recent judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2014) 3 SCC 210 (Sanjay Verma V. Haryana Roadways), wherein higher compensation has been awarded for "Future Treatment", "Pain and Suffering" and "Mental Agony" and contended that since the appellant suffered a fracture in right ankle, awarding a meagre sum as compensation by the Tribunal is erroneous and the same has to be enhanced.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record and taking note of the notional income, had arrived at the compensation of Rs.2,08,800/- and therefore, it cannot be said to be meagre and the compensation awarded is more than what the appellant deserves.

¶19

Heard both sides.

¶20

Taking note of the submissions made by both parties; that the appellant, who was employed in a Retail Shop, suffered fracture in the Right Ankle; that the disability was assessed at 40% by the Doctor; that the appellant was also taking treatment, subsequent to her discharge from hospital, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be modified.

¶21

Fixing the notional income of the appellant at Rs.5000/- per month, in view of the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 459 (SC) (Syed Sadiq V. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) and 2013 (3) CTC 883 (Rajesh & Others V. Rajbir Singh & Others); the percentage of disability at 40%, as certified by P.W.2, eventhough the Doctor, who treated the injured was not examined; awarding compensation towards "Loss of Amenities" and "Attender Charges" and enhancing the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, except under the head "Damage to

¶22

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

¶23

Clothes", the compensation payable to the appellant is as hereunder: Permanent Disability @ Rs.2000/- for each percentage of disability :: Rs.80,000/Loss of income for 5 months :: Rs.25,000/- (Rs.5000 x 5) Medical Expenses :: Rs.90,000/Pain and Suffering :: Rs.25,000/Extra Nourishment :: Rs.20,000/Transportation :: Rs.20,000/Attender Charges :: Rs.20,000/Loss of Amenities :: Rs.20,000/Damage to Clothes :: Rs. 1000/Total :: Rs.3,01,000/(Rounded off to) :: Rs.3,00,000/Hence, the compensation payable to the appellant is enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-. The 2^nd respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the entire amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The rate of interest shall be as awarded by the Tribunal @ 7.5% per annum. On such deposit being made, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount by making necessary application before the Tribunal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nv To The IV Judge, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Court of Small Causes), Chennai. 1 cc to Mr.K. Moorthy ,Advocate, SR.No.50156 1 cc to Mr.M.B. Gopalan ,Advocate, SR.No.50252 C.M.A. No. 2139 of 2012 rbd(Co) pmk.24.12.2014

¶24

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

M.Sundari Muthukrishnan v. Sutherland Global Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sundari Muthukrishnan v. Sutherland Global Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Abbas Vs Jarina Begum

The New India Assurance Vs M.Velumani

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R. Rani

The Managing Director Vs Dhanapalan

Tmt.Thenmozhi Vs S.Devarajan

Brnach Manger United Vs Veerammal W/O.Velvamani Sithan