Dismissed

M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance v. C. Ellappan

Madras HC10 Mar 2016CMA/2823/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award. Upholding the Tribunal finding of negligence, the Court affirmed the compensation quantum based on a 15 multiplier for a 45-year-old 90% disabled claimant and the 6% interest rate, directing the insurer to deposit the amount.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Appellant directed to deposit entire award amount with interest and costs within eight weeks.

M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs C. Ellappan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.3.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

and M.P.Nos.1 of 2014

¶7

M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Sundaram Towers, No.45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai-600 014. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent

¶8

vs. 1. C.Ellappan (a person unconscious) Represented by wife & NF Kamala ..1st Respondent/Petitioner 2. M.Shailesh Shetty .. 2nd Respondent/ 1st respondent

¶9

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2012, passed in M.C.O.P.No.810 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.

¶10

The Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 15.09.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.810 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.

¶11

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

¶12

It is a case of injury. On 28.4.2008, when the injured was going on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TVS XL Super Heavy Duty moped, the Opel Corsa car belonging to the first respondent and insured with second respondent bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-3479 came in the same direction from Krishnagiri towards Hosur in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the moped and thereby, caused grievous injuries to the claimant. FIR was registered against the driver of the car. The injured claimant filed a claim for compensation for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-.

¶13

In support of the claim, the claimant's wife was examined as P.W.1, Dr.D.V.Gandhi was examined as P.W.2 and Murali Krishnan was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.10 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-

¶14

Ex.No. Details
A1 FIR
A2 Wound Certificate
A3 M.V.I report
A4 Insurance policy
A5 Pay slip
A6 Discharge summary
A7 Disability Certificate
A8 C.T. Scan
A9 I.D. card
A10 Attendance slips

¶15

On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked before the Tribunal.

¶16

The Tribunal based on the oral evidence of the witnesses and the F.I.R. came to conclusion that the driver of the car was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and he was responsible for the accident and consequently liability was fixed on the insurance company and the 2nd respondent herein jointly and severally, as the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company, to compensate the claimant. On this issue, learned counsel for the appellant has not placed any material to come to a different conclusion from that of the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal.

¶17

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 6% per annum:-

¶18

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

¶19

Sl.No	Head Amo	unt granted by the Tribunal
1	Loss of earnings Rs.	9,72,000/-
2	Pain and suffering Rs.	50,000/-
3	Transport Rs.	10,000/-
4	Nutrition Rs.	10,000/-
5	Attender Charges Rs.	1,00,000/-
6	Future Treatment Rs.	1,00,000/-
	Total compensation Rs.	12,42,000/-

¶20

Insofar as the compensation is concerned, based on the categorical evidence of P.W.3, Murali Krishnan, the Tribunal fixed the salary of the claimant as Rs.6000/-, which is very reasonable and is justified.

¶21

Considering the age of the deceased, at the time of accident, namely, 45 years, the Tribunal adopted 15 multiplier in consonance of the Apex Court's decision in Sarla Verma – vs. - Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009(2) TNMAC 1 (SC).

¶22

Considering the fact that the injured has suffered 90% disability, which is evident from the disability certificate given by P.W.2 Doctor, we are of the view that 90% disability taken by the Tribunal is justified. Therefore, this Court finds no good reason to reduce the multiplier and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.9,72,000/- towards loss of earnings.

¶23

Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads, pain and suffering, transport, nutrition, attender charges and future treatment are very reasonable and justified.

¶24

There is no serious objection in respect of the interest granted at 6% per annum.

¶25

In the above circumstances, finding no merit, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

¶26

The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, with interest and costs, if not already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the 1^st respondent is permitted to withdraw the same on filing necessary application before the Tribunal.

¶27

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

¶28

There will be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶29

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rg
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.
Copy to: The Section Officer,
VR Section,High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.M.B. Gopalan, Advocate Sr.16187
C.M.A.No.2823 of 2014
AD(CO)
Eu 01.04.16

¶30

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

M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance v. C. Ellappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance v. C. Ellappan

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

The Regional Manager, Vs Gowri

Ms. Padma Priya, Vs Mr. M.Shriraman

Devi Vs E. Kuberan

J.Narasimhan Vs Union of India

Bajaj Alliance General Vs Sakunthala

The Manager Claims Vs D.Karthick