Partly allowed

Branch Manager v. P.Murugan

Madras HC3 Nov 2014CMA/2592/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court reviewed the journal quarry of compensation awarded for a tibial injury. It applied the multiplier method based on 44% disability and adjusted the head for loss of earning capacity. The Court reduced the total compensation from 2.05 lakh to 1.42 lakh and directed the insurance company to deposit the reduced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs.1,42,000 along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

Branch Manager Vs P.Murugan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.11.2014

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

CMA No.2592 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

Branch Manager
National Insurance
Co. Ltd., D.O. II,
No.16, State Bank Road,
Coimbatore – 641 018. .. Appellant / 3 rd Respondent
vs.
1.P.Murugan .. 1 st Respondent/Petitioner
2.P.Thangaraj .. 2 nd Respondent/1 st Respondent
3.R.Senthil .. 3 rd Respondent / 2 nd Respondent
(2nd and 3rd respondent herein were
set exparte by the court below, hence
notice in this appeal against them
may be dispensed with)

¶7

Prayer :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 12^th November 2011 made in MCOP No.362 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/FTC No.5 at Tirupur, Coimbatore District.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.K.Padmanabhan For Respondent : Mr.Prabhu for M/s.Muthuselvam for R1

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12^th November 2011 made in MCOP No.362 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/FTC No.5 at Tirupur, Coimbatore District.

¶11

¶12

The Insurance Company is before this Court aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal in favour of the 1^st respondent/claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 26.02.2008.

¶13

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

¶14

Heard Mr.K.Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company and Mr.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/claimant.

¶15

The only grievance of the appellant/insurance company is that, for the injuries sustained in tibea, multiplier method was adopted and a sum of Rs.2,05,920/- was awarded. He would submit that it is only a partial disability and it would not enable the Court to apply the multiplier method. No doubt, as per the evidence, there are two different opinions with regard to the disability whereas the trial court rightly determined the disability at 44%. The nature of the injuries which was caused to the tibea, would not technically enable the tribunal to adopt the multiplier method. Facts of the case do not warrant application of multiplier method as held by the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Veluchamy and anr. reported in 2005 ACJ 1483.

¶16

In view of the above said circumstances, Rs.2,05,920/awarded by the tribunal under the head loss of earning capacity is hereby set aside. The 1^st respondent/claimant has sustained 44% disability. Hence, by awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability, a sum of Rs.88,000/- is hereby awarded under the head disability. Considering the fact that the 1^st respondent/claimant was taking treatment for almost two months and no amount has been awarded by the tribunal towards loss of income during treatment period and for attendar charges, a sum of Rs.12,000/- is hereby awarded under the head loss of income during treatment period & attendar charges. As far as amounts awarded by the tribunal under other heads are concerned, they are confirmed. Hence, the amount of Rs.2,47,920/awarded by the tribunal is hereby reduced to Rs.1,42,000/-, break-up as follows -

¶17

The interest awarded by the tribunal @ 7.5% shall remain unaltered.

¶18

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

¶19

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation awarded by the tribunal to Rs.1,42,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount alongwith interest, if not already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1^st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the said amount. If the amount has already been deposited by the insurance company, they are permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the deposit alongwith proportionate interest. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rgr
To
The Additional District Judge,
FTC No.5 at Tirupur,
Coimbatore District.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Padmanabhan, Advocate Sr.52177
+ 1 cc to Mr.D. Muthuselvam, Advocate SR.52401
CMA No.2592 of 2014
NG(CO)
Eu 12.12.14

¶21

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

Branch Manager v. P.Murugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager v. P.Murugan

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

Thanseela Begam Vs P.Kaleeswaran

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police

Raghu Vs the Superintendent of Police

The Oriental Insurance Vs Sakunthala

M. Vellingiri Vs M. Pazhanisami

A. Paulien Vs G. Ravichandran