Dismissed

M/S.National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Senthil Kumar

Madras HC14 Jul 2015CMA/1228/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an insurance company's appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court upheld the tribunal's determination of 55% disablement and the calculated compensation for loss of earning power, medical expenses, and other heads, finding no material error in the quantum.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed; appellant directed to deposit the award amount.

M/S.National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Senthil Kumar — Insurance | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.07.2015

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

CMA No.1228 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

M/s.National Insurance Company Limited
Cpirt Veedhi,
Tirupur. ... Appellant / 3 rd Respondent
vs.
1.Senthil Kumar ... 1 st Respondent / Petitioner
2.Manikandan ... 2 nd Respondent / 1 st Respondent
3.Devaraj ... 3 rd Respondent / 2 nd Respondent
(2 nd & 3 rd Respondents are set exparte
in lower court)

¶7

Prayer :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2013 in MCOP No.592 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Judge) at Tirupur.

¶8

For Appellant : M/s.R.Sreevidhya For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj for R1

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

The appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the award of Rs.4,73,717/- awarded by the tribunal to the 1^st respondent/claimant, a driver aged about 32 years alleged to be earning a sum of Rs.3300/- per month, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 19.08.2009.

¶11

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

¶12

Heard Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company and Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/claimant.

¶13

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claim petition does not disclose any material evidence regarding the injuries and the tribunal erroneously adopted multiplier method to determine the loss of income and therefore she seeks to set aside the award passed by the tribunal.

¶14

A close scrutiny of the claim petition and the award would show that in Page 4 of the claim petition, it has been categorically stated that the first respondent/claimant sustained fracture and hemorrhage in the brain, skull and face and multiple abrasions all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Kongunadu Hospital, Coimbatore and thereafter in Ponnaiah Hospital. Based on the medical records and PW3 – doctor's evidence, the tribunal, considering the fracture of the maxilla in the left side of the face, injury in the skull, especially hemorrhage in the brain and a consequent weakening of the left leg and hand, rightly determined the disability at 55% though the doctor spoke about 65%. Since the left leg and hand got weakened and does not have the strength to act as a driver as he was before the accident, definitely there is a loss of earning power and therefore the tribunal rightly adopted multiplier method taking the monthly income at Rs.3,300/-. Rs.3,300/- fixed by the tribunal as monthly income of a driver during the year 2009 cannot be said to be on the higher side.

¶15

The claimant was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and therefore, the tribunal, justifiably adopted multiplier 16 and awarded a sum of Rs.3,48,480/- as loss of earning power in the following manner -

¶16

Rs.3,300 x 12 x 16 x 55/100 = Rs.3,48,480/-

¶17

Rs.25,000/- awarded towards pain & sufferings, Rs.20,000/towards loss of amenities, Rs.2,000/- each towards extra nourishment and transportation and Rs.76,237/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.P5, in all amounting to Rs.4,73,717/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% is justified and therefore there is no occasion for this court to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

¶18

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

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

¶20

The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, alongwith interest and costs, if not already deposited, within a period of four 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 same, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn, if any.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rgr
To
The First Additional District Judge
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tirupur.
+1cc to Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, Advocate, S.R.No.35566
+1cc to Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.35696
CMA No.1228 of 2015
KU(CO)
CA(06/08/2015)

¶22

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

M/S.National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Senthil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Senthil Kumar

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

The Managing Director Vs Sulochana

The Managing Director Vs Sivagami

The Managing Director Vs R. Murugan

The Managing Director Vs Mayakannan

The Managing Director Vs Muruvan

C. Shanmugam Vs C. Balasubramanian